Hi Bradley: Thanks for the very quick response;
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 02:49:05PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: <snip> > Jason Etheridge wrote at 12:24 (EST): > >> Granting a license isn't legal advice; it's granting a license. And > >> intent should matter. > > Licensor intent is indeed often considered by courts and others in > interpreting a license. However, given that we're discussing this, I'd > suggest we discuss the current license grant text, and perhaps come to a > mutually agreeable resolution on changes to it, rather than merely > relying on the grant text as written. > > To that end, there are three issues that I'd like to raise here: > > 0. Could you perhaps tell us what Equinox seeks to accomplish by issuing > separate CC-By-NC-SA and CC-By-SA licenses? <snip> > I hope Equinox can shed some light on their intentions with this > licensing structure. For some context, I can refer you to the thread that began on the Evergreen General mailing list around here: http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/2011-November/005737.html Some conversations have been held in IRC meetings since then on the subject but I'm not sure if there is anything with a clearer message to which I can point. I had hoped to avoid involving the Conservancy at all and don't want to burden you/it further with IRC logs that only have trace references to the matter. > 1. It's contradictory to call CC-By-SA an "exclusive license". > > [ This issue may be moot depending on what discussion of (0) above > yields. ] > > The "Note: " text above says that the CC-By-SA license is granted as > an "exclusive license". This is a contradictory statement. CC-By-SA > is absolutely *not* an exclusive license, so calling it such just > confuses the matter. > > 2. Licensing for Evergreen comes via Conservancy, not DIG. > > [ This issue may be moot depending on what discussion of (0) above > yields. ] > > While Conservancy interprets the intent of the existing license text > above to mean that DIG -- and therefore by extension Evergreen -- and > therefore by extension Conservancy itself -- is the ongoing recipient > of the CC-By-SA license for any material with that "Note: " attached, > Dan is correct that it's confusing to grant a special license to an > entity that isn't a real legal entity. Therefore, we'd suggest that > if the text above is to be used, it should have the following edits: > s/The Documentation Interest Group (DIG) for the Evergreen Project/The > Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. (Conservancy), home of the Evergreen > Project/ > s/DIG/Conservancy/g Thanks for these clarifications! _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
