[ I asked Evan if it would be appropriate for me to join the list
temporarily on this thread he asked my opinion on. He said "feel
free" so I have. ]
Evan wrote yesterday:
> I've also made a note that "we" believe that themes aren't subject to
> the AGPLv3's copyleft provisions, similar to how the SFLC opined about
> WordPress
I can't and don't speak for the SFLC, but I think it's important to be
careful when comparing situations like this. That WordPress analysis
was a post facto analysis of what the implications were of an ongoing
licensing practice that already existed. That's not what you're
proposing on this thread: you're asking "How do we yield licensing
implications that work best for our community?" Since you are proposing
a license change to yield the result you want, you presumably have an
open canvas to make the licensing policy that's right for the community
(assuming all copyright holders agree on a licensing change).
It's true that one issue related to the WordPress analysis is relevant
here. Specifically, "does the AGPLv3 license on the main codebase
causes the CSS and images files in /images to be covered by AGPLv3's
copyleft, even when the CSS/images have a more permissive
AGPLv3-compatible license?". I simply don't know enough about how
status.net themes work to opine on that question. If I looked at the
codebase, I could probably come to the correct conclusion, but I do
suggest you consult a copyright attorney for advice, anyway.
But, for the sake of moving forward the discussion, let's *assume* the
answer is "No, CSS and image files in /images are not derivative of the
main codebase and can be licensed differently". Specifically, let's
assume that CSS files and image files put in /images are separate and
independent works that are "merely aggregated" with Status.Net's PHP
code. I hold that assumption for the rest of this email [0].
So, on to the fundamental question you're considering: "What practice
should be used for the licensing of themes (which are composed of CSS
and images) in the community?"
> re-licensing ... files ... like the organization's logo ... might be
> onerous or difficult.
I think your quite correct with that. This makes a good case that
images included themes should be licensed CC-A or some other highly
permissive license.
Regarding CSS, I disagree. CSS is basically code, and I don't see a
reason why an organization -- when they derive from your default CSS --
shouldn't be required to make those changes available to users. Often,
much of the look-and-feel of a given microblogging site comes through in
its CSS. I'd hate for others who want to run their own instances to not
be able to keep the look-and-feel in sync with others.
Note again: the license of the CSS is somewhat a separate issue from
whether or not the CSS is a derivative work of the main codebase. Even
if it is not derivative of the main codebase, you can still AGPL the CSS
files you develop and require modified versions of the CSS to be made
available to users. I think that's a good outcome.
Anyway, that's my $0.02.
[0] The reason this is a good assumption to make for the sake of
argument is not necessarily because it's probably true, but because
as a community, even *if* themes, when distributed with StatusNet,
*are* derivative works of the main codebase, it's still possible for
all the copyright holders to agree on an exception to AGPLv3 that
permits different licensing of themes.
--
-- bkuhn
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this email are my own, not those of
my employer. My opinions are also not necessarily the opinions
of any organization with which I have a volunteer affiliation.
_______________________________________________
StatusNet-dev mailing list
StatusNet-dev@lists.status.net
http://lists.status.net/mailman/listinfo/statusnet-dev
