On 4/21/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about saying "either first or last lines"? > > What if both first and last lines are reserved for other uses?
What about "first or last usable lines in the source language"? andrew > > > > > > The license does not seem to be GPLv2-compatible, as clause 3 is a > > > weak copyleft constraint: it seems that I cannot combine a page > > > under this > > > > I've removed that one. > > > > > If you are going to propose a BSD-style license, I would strongly > > > recommend the (unmodified) 2-clause BSD license: > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html > > > > The attached license is quite similar to the BSD license with the only > > differences being that there is no 'binary' form, there's just a > > compiled form of the site (and explicitly lists some formats which the > > source might be compiled too). > > This explicit listing of formats is one of the main problems with the > license you're proposing: it ties things up to specific technical > details that are really going to become obsolete soon. > Good licenses try hard to avoid that. > > [...] > > In the website is not (c) SPI then > > our current footer really doesn't make any sense. > > Indeed. > > > > > > > e) from here on access to the CVS of the website should be given > > > > after > > > > clearly stating (and getting and agreement) that any and all > > > > contributions to the CVS, unless specified otherwise with clear > > > > (c) statements in the code, will be (c) SPI and will be > > > > considered "work under contract" > > > > > > I don't think you can claim it's work under contract, unless there > > > actually *is* a contract involved! > > > Voluntary contributions are not "work under contract", AFAICT. > > > > The idea of that portion, which might be misunderstood as the wording > > is not really accurate, is that if volunteers argue they "worked" for > > SPI for the website development there is no need to have paperwork > > done for the (c) transfer. If we drop the (c) transfer portion (I'm > > open to that, if people don't want it to be there) then this should be > > dropped too. > > > > AFAIK (in Spanish legislation at least) volunteer work can be > > considered work "for contract" (note the quotes) in the sense that you > > work for a company (a volunteer organisation) for free and you waive > > the rights to your work to it (including IP rights, and copyrights). > > Since there is no real written "contract" this does not conflict with > > the fact that the company you work for (the one you have a contract > > with) might have stated that you cannot work for others while working > > for them. > > I don't know if this argument could actually work in Spain. > I really doubt it can work in *any* jurisdiction where at least one > contributor lives... > > > > > As I said, however, those steps could be dropped, but then we have to > > ask every contributor to have their contributions licensed under this > > license (and cross our fingers that we will not have to change it in > > the future). We should also probably have to change the (c) portion to > > list people that have contributed in the site or, at the very least, > > say that SPI is not the (c) holder. > > Listing contributors would be nice. > It must be done at least in comments, as long as contributors retain > their copyright, so why not doing it in a visible way? > > > > N.B.: no need to Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop... > > > -- > :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) > ...................................................................... > Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 > Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 > > > > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
