Re: Revamping the debian-legal website (was Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?
On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:20:42 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: Frank Lichtenfeld wrote: Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again until someone comes up with a better idea how to better present the work of debian-legal. It would really, really, really help if things like the currently-unofficial debian-legal FAQ, some of the various FAQs about the GFDL, etc., were integrated into the debian-legal website. Yes, I think that MJ Ray's proposed text could be a starting point. Information about the freeness tests we use, etc., is the sort of thing which belongs there. Also, I really like the existing essay on the three categories of software, and the comments about how our list differs from the FSF and OSI lists; I do *not* want to lose that. [...] Remember to get appropriate copyright licenses from everyone whose FAQs you integrate and to specifically put the page under those licenses (not just the default OPI for the website), with appropriate copyright notices. We should attempt to follow our own recommended best practices. (Which, incidentally, is another thing to add to the website: best practices in copyright and licensing maintenance...) Fully agreed! Oh -- what license would debian-legal like for its own web pages? I think the main choice to make is copyleft (meaning GPL) or highly permissive (in which case I don't care which one, but it would be good to settle on one preferred one). My preferred non-copyleft license is the Expat (a.k.a MIT) license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt I suggest highly permissive, because this site is going to contain memes which we want to spread, and allowing unlimited reuse would IMHO be good for that. It's probably a good idea. ... OK, after making all those suggestions, it's time to put my money where my mouth is. I volunteer to do this work if nobody else wants to (or indeed to do it with someone else if they do want to). I'll even put it on high priority; I think I could get quite a lot done very quickly, since the information exists, but just has to be integrated. Great! This is really appreciated, indeed. :-) -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp3kVanpjRQA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Revamping the debian-legal website (was Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?
Frank Lichtenfeld wrote: Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again until someone comes up with a better idea how to better present the work of debian-legal. It would really, really, really help if things like the currently-unofficial debian-legal FAQ, some of the various FAQs about the GFDL, etc., were integrated into the debian-legal website. Information about the freeness tests we use, etc., is the sort of thing which belongs there. Also, I really like the existing essay on the three categories of software, and the comments about how our list differs from the FSF and OSI lists; I do *not* want to lose that. If you delete anything, *just* delete the summary list, and update the rest of the page to reflect that. I think the official debian-legal website should form more of an About debian-legal, what we do, and how we do it site. Maybe we can put license summaries in later, but I think they're not the most important thing there. Remember to get appropriate copyright licenses from everyone whose FAQs you integrate and to specifically put the page under those licenses (not just the default OPI for the website), with appropriate copyright notices. We should attempt to follow our own recommended best practices. (Which, incidentally, is another thing to add to the website: best practices in copyright and licensing maintenance...) Oh -- what license would debian-legal like for its own web pages? I think the main choice to make is copyleft (meaning GPL) or highly permissive (in which case I don't care which one, but it would be good to settle on one preferred one). I suggest highly permissive, because this site is going to contain memes which we want to spread, and allowing unlimited reuse would IMHO be good for that. ... OK, after making all those suggestions, it's time to put my money where my mouth is. I volunteer to do this work if nobody else wants to (or indeed to do it with someone else if they do want to). I'll even put it on high priority; I think I could get quite a lot done very quickly, since the information exists, but just has to be integrated. However, I would need website access of some sort in order to do that, which I don't have. --Nathanael Nerode -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
