On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:15:17PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: > 2009/8/23 adam hyde <a...@flossmanuals.net>: > > how does dual license sound? (ugh..i hate these license thingys)... > > I can't speak for the community as a whole, so my comments are only my > own. Since we already discussed and agreed on a CC-BY-SA licence I'd > much rather stick to that. I don't see any need to dual licence. I > could be persuaded if we were talking about a licence that was > appropriate for text, or if there were a need to use some other > licence. But dual licencing under the GPL makes no sense to me at all > - it will only serve to confuse things in my opinion. > > What do others think?
Having clear copyright will help if we need/desire to do licensing magic for e.g. a publisher. Perhaps each chapter should have a clear consensus amongst it's writers/contributors so it can be included/disincluded in a collection by license choice. > > as for the copyright - yes it can (and will) be reassigned...dont worry, > > FM is not out to own everyones copyright, and nor am I. The default is > > that whoever creates a chapter gets the copyright. if u like i can make > > all copyright for the manual to the 'TOS Authors' or some > > such...whatever you like, just let me know > > We still need to figure out the contributor agreements here, which > will allow us to decide who is to hold copyright on the collated > materials. It's fine to leave it as it is right now. The key thing is > that we can change it when we know what we want to change it to. > > I'd like to get this stuff sorted out so that we can actually start > contributing content. If this helps, I have some contribution policies I've been drafting for the FreeIPA project: http://freeipa.org/page/User:Quaid/Contribution_policy_(draft) Rather than a full-blown contributor license agreement[1], this policy is lightweight for projects with a simpler scope to cover. This includes Wikipedia and the Linux kernel (the first gave much source material, the second is an inspiration for how a simple policy can help). The Fedora Project, encompassing many thousands of packages, seems to need a more complicated CLA "just in case". Of the two drafts I have there, the license-agnostic one[2] probably would serve us best. It focuses on, "Put my contribution under the license of the file I am contributing to." We could only need to s/FreeIPA/TOS/g and reduce the license list. We might want to leave a GPL version to cover code examples. Anyway, that policy is written under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license already, so we can use it at-will, as-is or modified. - Karsten [1] Fedora's CLA: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CLA [2] http://freeipa.org/page/User:Quaid/Contribution_policy_(draft)#License-agnostic_version -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41
pgpKXDkAjP80Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
