<snip> > giving them an opportunity to withhold their consent to an explicit > license going forward, I think we're on reasonably good ground.
Oh, I do too. Lori just put me in an anal retentive/pedantic mindset with talk of unlicensed material. > So are you genuinely worried about > the risk of legal proceedings, or is something else bothering you and > this side thread is just the symptom? No, no worries. Intellectual "property" discussions tweak my brain. I personally think the whole thing is out of balance and the public is at risk of being catapulted off the scales. And that lawyers beget more lawyers. But I also work for and have interest in a company that has a more melded view of such things. > We seem to have quickly veered off > your original question, which was about providing explicit attribution > for large works that were incorporated into the documentation. Right. Veering back toward pedantic and away from kumbayah, I'm going to focus on acquisitions documentation. There's a document on the wiki titled "The Acquisitions Module Evergreen Release 2.0.0". It has an explicit license: This manual is licensed under the Creative Commons, Attribution-Share-Alike license. This document was created by Equinox Software, Inc. with funding provided by Georgia Public Library Service. Any reproductions or adaptations must attribute original creation of this work to Equinox Software, Inc. and Georgia Public Library Service. Any reproductions or adaptations must be distributed under the same or a similar license. This document was placed wholesale within the Evergreen documentation, which of course, was the intention. The original issue was that the license was not being met. The Evergreen documentation merely had a Copyright (C) The Evergreen Project, which is a non-legal entity similar to the PostgreSQL Global Development Group. There was also a list of participants. What is happening now (or what I'd like to continue seeing) is some dialog on how to best fulfill the CC-BY-SA licenses of external sources that we integrate into the Evergreen documentation. In the development community this is easy for us, as attribution is an optional term for the GPL license, and credit for work is easily determined. It seems sensible for similar contributions to the documentation to work with the same sort of no-barrier record keeping. But it seems different to me if you're integrating someone else's work, however licensed. Before git made it easy for us, I made sure to credit tsbere for any patch he contributed that I committed. Everyone else does similarly. But with documentation, we weren't doing that, and the material is shared under a license which explicitly cares about attribution. <re-licensing> > What are you going to do to help resolve this issue? I'm going to forget about it. :-) -- Jason Etheridge | VP, Tactical Development | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [email protected] | web: http://www.esilibrary.com _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
