"Andrey V. Lukyanov" <[email protected]> > > One more question : > > > > Your page is copyrighted and signed by you (with your email address as > > the contact) ; this is absolutely not a problem (in fact it is a good > > practice for all publications on the web), but there does not seem to > > exist any proposed licence on your page, so the only way to get one > > would be to contact you via your displayed email address. > > > > Can this specification page be licenced by you in an open or free way > > on this page, possibly dual-licenced under Creative Commons (CC-BY-SA > > : author's attribution required, share-alike) or LGPL (because it > > describes an algorithm, assimilable to library source code that will > > then be freely modifiable and implementable) ? > > I added both licenses. > > See http://tapemark.narod.ru/comp/utf12en.html
The links to the licence texts are definitely incorrect : Wikipedia articles are not a valid source for the texts of these licences, and you also need to point directly to a versioned text of these licences, or even better link to a legal copy of these copyrighted texts directly on your site (hosted on the same domain to assert that it is owned and managed in the same realm as your document page). Without this change, there is still no legal term, and the licence grant is weak (mostly inexistant). Note that even Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons take a lot of care of identifying the licences applicable to their contents very precisely (this is a requirement for users of these sites) and point to their text exactly. Also the term "dual-licenced" is commonly used in the vernacular language, but legally, it may be confusive (do others have to apply both simultaneously?). It should better be a sentence like: This document is licenced to you at no charge, under any of the following licences, at your convenience : * CC-BY-CA : Creative Commons licence (with authors attribution required, share-alike), version x.x (or later) * LGPL : GNU Lesser General Public Licence, version x.x (or later) For the LGPL, you should also include the warranty disclaimer sentence sugested after the end of the legals terms of the LGPL, unless you want to assume at least all the legal warranties yourself or propose/sell such service. Read the two licence sites for details on how to apply these licences to your contents. Note that the LGPL allows implementers to include it in their implementation and provide it only in its binary form without having to provide the source of the rest of their application in which the licenced material is used. If you want to be even more lieberal about source code availability to further licensees you may also choose a BSD licence as well (the BSD licence is compatible with all open and/or free licences, the only requirement being the copyright notice with author's attribution). Please look at the respective GNU.org and CreativeCommons.org sites to find the exact licence version that meets your requirements, and specify the versions number explicitly on your page (if you accept later versions specify it as well with "or later version"). For example I suggest LGPL v3.0 or later (but you may want v2.1 or even v2.0 as the minimum licence)
