On 6/19/06, Chris Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Frank Warmerdam wrote: > > Adrian Custer wrote: > >> Hey all, > >> > >> This is an attempt to clarify the situation for Geotools documentation > >> going forward. > >> > >> We apparently have two choices for the User Guide (aka Programmers' > >> Manual): > >> > >> 1) Add each contributor to the copyright list, holding the > >> copyright in common and license the whole document under the > >> FDL. > >> > >> 2) Assign copyright to the PMC or OSGeo and have them license > >> the document to the general public under the FDL. > >> > >> The main advantage of the latter is that it becomes possible for the > >> project to change its mind as to the details of the license, something > >> which may become important as the FDL comes to be better understood. > >> This second approach seems to be the one taken by the Developers Guide. > >> Here is the copyright statement from the Developers Guide: > >> > >> Copyright (c) 2004 Geotools Project Management Committee (PMC). > >> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this > >> document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, > >> Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software > >> Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being with no Invariant > >> Sections, with the Front-Cover Texts being no Front-Cover Texts, > >> and with the Back-Cover Texts being no Back-Cover Texts. > >> > >> Given that the PMC is considered *not* to have sufficient legal standing > >> for code copyright assignment, I presume the same is true for the docs. > >> Will the OSGeo be able to receive copyright assignment for the docs? Is > >> there any particular proceedure we need to follow to assign this > >> copyright and to receive assignment from third parties? > > > > Adrian, > > > > I would encourage having the same copyright holder for the documentation as > > for the source code for simplicity of management. While the PMC has > > questionable legal standing as a copyright holder, as long as the code > > is that way, perhaps the docs also ought to be. > > > > Is use of FDL Geotools policy for docs? I don't know a lot about > > document licenses, but the OSGeo board is using one of the creative > > commons licenses instead of FDL specifically because the FDL was seen > > as overly complicated and so it is hard to understand the issues. And > > this was Rich Steele, the lawyer who made the suggestion. > I don't think there's been much discussion about FDL, at least none that > I remember. I believe I'd prefer some type of Creative Commons license, > based on recommendations of several people I respect. I think we should > put the issue to the PMC
none that I recall either - I'm happy with a CC license for the docs. > > > > > PS. I do think the "PMC as copyright holder" issue again with Rich. I > > believe GRASS is in the same position of having a non-legal entity > > declared as holding the copyright. > I've been meaning to raise this issue, as I'd like to have GeoTools > copyright assigned to the OSGeo foundation, where it has good legal > protection. I'll try to raise it as a more formal motion soon. Yes, this needs to happen - having the PMC as owner was fine whilst there was no stronger legal entity in existance but now that OSGeo exists that seems like an excelent move. > > But if we're deciding on the user guide, that should be a bit easier, > I'd say start it assigned to OSGeo, with a CC license (I'm fine with > just attribution, I can do share-alike if others also want that). > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > -- > Chris Holmes > The Open Planning Project > http://topp.openplans.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
