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.
Right, mitchell mentioned this just recently, and we were thinking along the same lines. Mitchell suggested Attribution or Attribution/Share-alike. The latter requires derived works to be governed by the same CC A/S-a license. That might hamper book authors.
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.
http://creativecommons.org/license/
is the link, so others can read and comment.
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? :-)
Good point! I don't. Maybe others feel differently, though.
DevMo may wish to link to xulplanet.org and other great doc-sites, but such linking may lead to server overload and outage. If we want DevMo to stand alone, we'll want to try to incorporate all the good docs already out there, as much as possible. That will require getting everyone to agree on license. Perhaps existing sites use licenses such as a CC one already. Can you take a look?
/be _______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
