Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi, > > Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès writes: >> >>> Hello Guix! >>> >>> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is >>> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside >>> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing >>> it). >>> >>> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that, >>> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and >>> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in >>> the manual). Patch below. >>> >>> What do people think? >> >> Sounds good to me. I'm curious though; why do we need CC-BY-SA, >> additionally to GFDL? > > We don’t “need” it, but I think it’s nice to have since it’s used by > many free culture projects out there, starting with Wikipedia. Thanks for the information. Maxim
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Hi, Vagrant Cascadian skribis: > Just for clarity, do you mean the GFDL with a laundry-list of non-free > anti-features excluded, like the guix manual: > > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no > Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Yes of course; the patch I proposed explicitly states that: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html Thanks for asking! Ludo’.
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Hi, Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Hello Guix! >> >> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is >> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside >> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing >> it). >> >> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that, >> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and >> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in >> the manual). Patch below. >> >> What do people think? > > Sounds good to me. I'm curious though; why do we need CC-BY-SA, > additionally to GFDL? We don’t “need” it, but I think it’s nice to have since it’s used by many free culture projects out there, starting with Wikipedia. Ludo’.
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
January 27, 2022 12:59 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is >> not great > I agree. Joshua Branson. > -- > Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org > Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
I agree. pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) ezt írta (időpont: 2022. jan. 27., Cs 18:35): > I agree. > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Hello Guix! > > > > With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is > > not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside > > Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing > > it). > > > > I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that, > > unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and > > GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in > > the manual). Patch below. > > > > What do people think? > > > > If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the > > authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing > > terms, or whether they’d like a different free license. The script > > below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup > > still): > >
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
I agree. On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello Guix! > > With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is > not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside > Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing > it). > > I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that, > unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and > GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in > the manual). Patch below. > > What do people think? > > If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the > authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing > terms, or whether they’d like a different free license. The script > below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup > still):
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Ludovic Courtès writes: > With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is > not great Good catch, I agree! Janneke -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Vagrant Cascadian 写道： Just for clarity, do you mean the GFDL with a laundry-list of non-free anti-features excluded, like the guix manual: I think that goes without saying, but clarity is good: thanks for bringing it up. Invariants would be a deal-breaker for several of us I'm sure, including myself. Kind regards, T G-R signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
On 2022-01-26, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is > not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside > Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing > it). > > I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that, > unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and > GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in > the manual). Patch below. Just for clarity, do you mean the GFDL with a laundry-list of non-free anti-features excluded, like the guix manual: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Without that, I'm not sure you can actually include it in the guix manual (other than, perhaps, by using CC-BY-SA 4.0, maybe)... live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
How does that sound? Excellent. Thanks! T G-R signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Hello, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hello Guix! > > With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is > not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside > Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing > it). > > I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that, > unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and > GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in > the manual). Patch below. > > What do people think? Sounds good to me. I'm curious though; why do we need CC-BY-SA, additionally to GFDL? Thanks, Maxim
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
>
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual). Patch below.
>
> What do people think?
Sounds good.
> If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
> authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
> terms, or whether they’d like a different free license. The script
> below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
> still):
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
> $22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
[…]
> "Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
> "Ricardo Wurmus"
I agree.
--
Ricardo
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
Me too. -- Kinds regards Oliver Propst https://twitter.com/Opropst
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
On January 26, 2022 10:24:11 AM GMT+01:00, "Ludovic Courtès"
wrote:
>Hello Guix!
>
>With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
>not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
>Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
>it).
>
>I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
>unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
>GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
>the manual). Patch below.
>
>What do people think?
>
>If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
>authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
>terms, or whether they’d like a different free license. The script
>below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
>still):
>
>--8<---cut here---start->8---
>scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
>$22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
> "Andreas Enge"
> "Chris Marusich"
> "Chris Marusich and Léo Le Bouter"
> "Christopher Baines"
> "Christopher Lemmer Webber"
> "Danjela Lura"
> "Danny Milosavljevic"
> "David Thompson"
> "Efraim Flashner"
> "Florian Pelz"
> "Guix Hackers"
> "Gábor Boskovits"
> "Jakob L. Kreuze"
> "Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen"
> "Jan Nieuwenhuizen"
> "Joshua Branson"
> "Julien Lepiller"
> "Konrad Hinsen"
> "Laura Lazzati"
> "Ludovic (civodul) Courtès"
> "Ludovic Courtès"
> "Ludovic Courtès and Leo Famulari"
> "Magali Lemes"
> "Manolis Ragkousis"
> "Marius (mbakke) Bakke"
> "Marius Bakke"
> "Mathieu Othacehe"
> "Maxim Cournoyer"
> "Pierre Neidhardt"
> "Pjotr Prins"
> "Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
> "Ricardo Wurmus"
> "Roel Janssen"
> "Simon Tournier"
> "Tatiana Sholokhova"
> "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"
> "sirgazil")
>--8<---cut here---end--->8---
>
>How does that sound?
>
>Thanks,
>Ludo’.
>
I agree
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello Guix! > > With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is > not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside > Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing > it). > > I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that, > unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and > GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in > the manual). Patch below. > > What do people think? I agree -- Efraim Flashner רנשלפ םירפא GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
I agree!
On 1/26/22 11:24, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hello Guix!
With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
it).
I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
the manual). Patch below.
What do people think?
If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
terms, or whether they’d like a different free license. The script
below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
still):
--8<---cut here---start->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
$22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
"Andreas Enge"
"Chris Marusich"
"Chris Marusich and Léo Le Bouter"
"Christopher Baines"
"Christopher Lemmer Webber"
"Danjela Lura"
"Danny Milosavljevic"
"David Thompson"
"Efraim Flashner"
"Florian Pelz"
"Guix Hackers"
"Gábor Boskovits"
"Jakob L. Kreuze"
"Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen"
"Jan Nieuwenhuizen"
"Joshua Branson"
"Julien Lepiller"
"Konrad Hinsen"
"Laura Lazzati"
"Ludovic (civodul) Courtès"
"Ludovic Courtès"
"Ludovic Courtès and Leo Famulari"
"Magali Lemes"
"Manolis Ragkousis"
"Marius (mbakke) Bakke"
"Marius Bakke"
"Mathieu Othacehe"
"Maxim Cournoyer"
"Pierre Neidhardt"
"Pjotr Prins"
"Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
"Ricardo Wurmus"
"Roel Janssen"
"Simon Tournier"
"Tatiana Sholokhova"
"Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"
"sirgazil")
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
How does that sound?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
diff --git a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
index de02c6c..0d6b08e 100644
--- a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
+++ b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
@@ -60,4 +60,19 @@
#:label tag
#:url (guix-url (tag-url-path tag)))
" ")) ; NOTE: Force space for readability in non-CSS browsers.
- (sort tags tag-first?
+ (sort tags tag-first?)))
+
+(div
+ (@ (class "license"))
+ ,(G_ `(p "Unless otherwise stated, blog posts on this site are
+copyrighted by their respective authors and published under the terms of
+the " ,(G_
+`(a (@ (href
"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/;))
+"CC-BY-SA 4.0"))
+ " license and those of the "
+ ,(G_
+`(a (@ (href
+"https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html;))
+"GNU Free Documentation License"))
+ " (version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections, no
+Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts)."
diff --git a/website/static/blog/css/post.css b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
index 57d7f0d..95035ba 100644
--- a/website/static/blog/css/post.css
+++ b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
@@ -38,3 +38,8 @@ article {
article.limit-width {
max-width: 720px;
}
+
+.license {
+font-size: 0.8em;
+line-height: 1.4em;
+}
Clarifying blog post licensing
Hello Guix!
With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
it).
I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
the manual). Patch below.
What do people think?
If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
terms, or whether they’d like a different free license. The script
below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
still):
--8<---cut here---start->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
$22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
"Andreas Enge"
"Chris Marusich"
"Chris Marusich and Léo Le Bouter"
"Christopher Baines"
"Christopher Lemmer Webber"
"Danjela Lura"
"Danny Milosavljevic"
"David Thompson"
"Efraim Flashner"
"Florian Pelz"
"Guix Hackers"
"Gábor Boskovits"
"Jakob L. Kreuze"
"Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen"
"Jan Nieuwenhuizen"
"Joshua Branson"
"Julien Lepiller"
"Konrad Hinsen"
"Laura Lazzati"
"Ludovic (civodul) Courtès"
"Ludovic Courtès"
"Ludovic Courtès and Leo Famulari"
"Magali Lemes"
"Manolis Ragkousis"
"Marius (mbakke) Bakke"
"Marius Bakke"
"Mathieu Othacehe"
"Maxim Cournoyer"
"Pierre Neidhardt"
"Pjotr Prins"
"Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
"Ricardo Wurmus"
"Roel Janssen"
"Simon Tournier"
"Tatiana Sholokhova"
"Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"
"sirgazil")
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
How does that sound?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
(use-modules (haunt reader commonmark)
(haunt reader)
(haunt post)
(guix build utils)
(srfi srfi-1))
(define files
(find-files "posts" "\\.(md|sxml)$"))
(define authors
(delete-duplicates
(append-map (lambda (file)
(define reader
(if (string-suffix? ".md" file)
commonmark-reader
sxml-reader))
(map string-trim-both
(string-split (post-ref (read-post reader file) 'author)
#\,)))
files)))
diff --git a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
index de02c6c..0d6b08e 100644
--- a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
+++ b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
@@ -60,4 +60,19 @@
#:label tag
#:url (guix-url (tag-url-path tag)))
" ")) ; NOTE: Force space for readability in non-CSS browsers.
- (sort tags tag-first?
+ (sort tags tag-first?)))
+
+(div
+ (@ (class "license"))
+ ,(G_ `(p "Unless otherwise stated, blog posts on this site are
+copyrighted by their respective authors and published under the terms of
+the " ,(G_
+`(a (@ (href "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/;))
+"CC-BY-SA 4.0"))
+ " license and those of the "
+ ,(G_
+`(a (@ (href
+"https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html;))
+"GNU Free Documentation License"))
+ " (version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections, no
+Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts)."
diff --git a/website/static/blog/css/post.css b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
index 57d7f0d..95035ba 100644
--- a/website/static/blog/css/post.css
+++ b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
@@ -38,3 +38,8 @@ article {
article.limit-width {
max-width: 720px;
}
+
+.license {
+font-size: 0.8em;
+line-height: 1.4em;
+}
