Dan, are you asking for a re-vote? If so, I suggest continuing with the vote and letting the balloting language stand as-is; it is clear, and allows some procedural latitude.
Karen G. Schneider Sent from my iPhone On Dec 22, 2009, at 4:39 AM, Dan Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:06 -0500, Karen Collier wrote: >> As discussed at the Documentation Interest Group Meeting on >> December, 9, 2009, I am calling for a vote on Documentation >> Licensing. Members of the Documentation Interest Group and >> interested members of the Evergreen Community, please vote yes or >> no on the following proposals by Monday, January 4, 2009 by >> replying to this email on the Evergreen Documentation mailing list >> ([email protected] >> ). >> >> 1 - Official Evergreen Documentation produced by the Documentation >> Interest Group should be licensed under the Creative Commons >> Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License >> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ >> ). >> >> 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the >> Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under >> the GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). > > I have to point out one small technicality; the version of the GNU GPL > that is linked to is the GPL v3.0, whereas the OpenSRF and Evergreen > code is GPL v2 or later (I _think_ we've applied the "or, at your > option, any later version" redistribution clause consistently, when we > have included the license header in source files). > > Oddly enough, the GPL v2 and GPL v3.0 are incompatible according to > the > creators of those licenses; to use code licensed under "GPL v2 or > later" > with GPL v3.0 code, one must choose the "or later" option and > relicense > the code under the GPL v3.0. > > I'm not opposed to the GPL v3.0 - among its benefits, it adds explicit > patent grants where the GPL v2 only carries an implicit patent grant, > and is written to comply with copyright laws worldwide instead of only > American copyright law - but we might want to keep the same "GPL v2, > or > at your option, any later version" redistribution clause for the > code in > the documentation, simply to keep it in sync with the OpenSRF / > Evergreen code base. Then, if at some point the project opts to move > to > the GPL v3, we can bring the documentation along too. > > My apologies for not providing this clarification earlier. Can we > consider the following a friendly amendment to the proposals? > > Change: > > 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the > Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under the > GNU > GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). > > To: > > 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the > Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under the > GNU > GPL version 2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html), > including the "or, at your option, any later version" redistribution > clause. > > _______________________________________________ > OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
