Brendan Eich wrote:
Apology: this is a little rushed and disorganized.
<snip>
One big question is license. When www.mozilla.org started, we didn't have an official documentation license, and now we pay for it every time someone asks "so, can I reuse this for X and Y?".
Ideally we'd decide something quickly and easily, without a massive long debate, so I nominate the Creative Commons sharealike license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ . There's a big momentum behind CC at the moment.
I know that some people have problems with certian sections of the CC licenses; in particular section 5, which appears to state that the licensor is liable in any legal action that may result from the document. See http://www.satn.org/archive/2003_04_27_archive.html#200212947 for more information and http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000153.html for links to more discussions on the topic.
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, etc. etc.
In other words, we allow free copying, derivative works, and commercial use, with the only condition that doc mods are freely shared. I believe this license would be Free, Open Source and DFSG-free (but I'd have to check.)
The possibly controversial bit is that we wouldn't require attribution. That doesn't mean docs won't normally have author attributions; it means that if we get hundreds of contributors (which I hope we do), it's much more manageable from a reuse point of view. Who gets famous this way anyway? :-)
Thoughts?
Gerv
_______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
