On 08/10/2012, Gerd Stolpmann <i...@gerd-stolpmann.de> wrote: > Am 08.10.2012 07:36:39 schrieb(en) Adrien: >> Hi, >> >> IANAL and it's not a bit early in the morning but a license that is >> accepted as a good one for translation should be good. I don't have a >> precise link but something like CC-BY-SA sounds right (and avoid >> licenses meant for code and the GFDL). > > An overview of CC-BY-SA is here: > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ > > This would mainly mean any redistributor would have to include the > attribution of the author, but that's it. This sounds good to me - I > think the packagers should at least be awarded by mentioning their > names. > > The conditions would be applied not only to the description but also to > the package Makefile (which is mostly descriptive, but can also include > bits of code). Patches should be excluded, though - because they are > applied to the target code, and we should not mix the license of the > built software with the license of the metadata (probably resulting in > incompatibilities).
Agreed. > Technically this would mean that we put the CC-BY-SA text, together > with some explanations how to apply it, at the top of the svn tree and > into all relevant copies. Again, agreed and this sounds good. As long as it's not the GFDL which requires the license to accompany the document in the same form as the document itself, it sounds good (it meant that you had to print that 16 pages license when printing 2 lines taken from wikipedia :-) ). >> I'm also wondering if a >> CC-BY-SA text can easily be embedded in (L)GPL code > > Don't think so (the obligation to attribute the author is incompatible > with the GPL - remember the debate about the four-clause BSD license). > There is no problem when the text is an extra file not directly > embedded in the executable. Hmm, right. Basically, my issue is that short texts usually don't get a separate license and lablgtk's is probably LGPL. It's a bit extreme but it's better if we can get this right from the start. Actually, the BY clause is maybe not even needed. I wrote "CC-BY-SA" almost by heart a few minutes after waking up and as a first possibility. No "BY" clause would still mean that the copyrights are in comments and trackable; I think that's probably what most people want and CC-SA could be enough. >> I agree it can be frustrating but I don't think we can blame anyone. > > Sure, this is just a "development". > > My proposition would now be: > - Mailing list: Agree on a license text (candidate is now CC-BY-SA, > please comment whether you like it or not) > - I personally ask all package maintainers whether they agree > (relicensing of the existing packages) > - I put the new text into effect As I said, maybe CC-SA is a better fit; more people need to state which criteria they want for the license. Your steps look fine; I don't know how it could be done differently actually. :-) Also, a quick "Licensing 101" could be sent to the caml-list and mention why the "static linking exception" for LGPL matters. I can't think of other topics right now and I have to leave soon but I'm sure we can easily find a few others. -- Adrien Nader _______________________________________________ Godi-list mailing list Godi-list@ocaml-programming.de https://godirepo.camlcity.org/mailman/listinfo/godi-list
