On 20/03/2017, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > welcome to the flashrom mailing list.
Thanks! > Starting almost identical discussions on two different mailing lists is > not productive. It _might_ make sense to revisit this after the > discussion on the coreboot mailing list has come to a conclusion. Fair enough. I was under the impression that the Flashrom and Coreboot communities might have different approaches/policies/etc, so it made sense to discuss the issue with each community separately, rather than assuming that one community's conclusion would apply to the other. > On 18.03.2017 17:50, Sam Kuper wrote: >> Ideally, Flashrom would license the content under the GFDL and CC >> BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license-compatible with content >> from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites. > > Why would we want to do that? > The GFDL is pretty much the worst licensing choice: it is GPL > incompatible, so we would hurt ourselves by using it. Dual-licensing under the GFDL won't hurt anyone, as long as the other license suits them. But sure, the GFDL probably isn't needed in this case. > CC licensing might make sense, but I don't see the benefit from making > the content license-compatible with wikipedia (anything copied from > third-party websites to wikipedia is quickly marked as copyvio, and then > reverted), It certainly shouldn't be marked as a copyvio and reverted if its license is compatible with Wikipedia's. Wikipedia has large amounts of material that was copied into it from license-compatible sources, including Flickr and many works whose copyright terms have expired. > and stackexchange questions about flashrom usually receive > zero upvotes (maybe because people tend to look elsewhere for flashrom > information). Perhaps. But if the Flashrom wiki content were CC BY-SA 3.0, then it could be excerpted into such answers on SE, which might lead to better quality answers there, and more upvotes. > Any licensing which inhibits moving code comments to the wiki or vice > versa is a really bad idea. I doubt this would be a problem in practice. I think there are standard exceptions for this sort of thing. But I'll try to remember to look into it, because if there *aren't* exceptions for it, then you're right: it could be a problem. >> If you agree with the position I have taken above, please do reply to >> this thread to say so, especially if you have suggestions about how to >> best achieve the (re-)licensing. >> >> If you disagree with my position, please reply to explain your >> disagreement. > > It looks like you're trying to start a vote with special rules where > only those who disagree with you have the burden of explaining their > position. No. If people agree with my position, there's a good chance their reasons are similar to mine, which means I don't want to burden them by asking them to explain those reasons, nor burden other list members by having people duplicate my arguments. If, however, people disagree with my position, then I would be grateful if they would explain their reasons so that we on the list can all consider those reasons, and revise our opinions if appropriate. Thanks, Sam _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] https://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
