Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (280 mails)

[jdd <jdd@xxxxxxxxx>]

Le 18/02/2011 01:59, Pascal Bleser a écrit :

> Right, but the fact that the licenses are adapted to each
> country's copyright laws is even more interesting.

I don't see how this can work for an international project (that is
world wide readable web site). What doeas "adaptation" mean? do any
author have to read the variant for any country his text is used?, In
such case, even cc recomends the unvariant one. and the language have
little meaning, several countries using the same langage.

things are différent, if, for example, you do photos in germany for a
german news paper. all is done in only one country.

> I personally don't see any philosophical (dude, don't be so
> French ;)) issue here.

no french at all (I'm not part of the "révolution des frites" :-). did
you ever met RMS? the problem is also *the reputation* of openSUSE on
the free sotware/opensourse world. I regret often some kind of thiking
in this world (see the controversy Novell<->Microsoft), but we have to
live with.

For RMS and many free software user, the problem is *first*
philosophical (and this makes it even more difficult). In LUG meetings
I'm often asked "are you for the free software or for the open source
software? I have to say I'm for both, but this leads to discussions :-)

> Point 1 is debatable (IMHO: "no" for text content, "yes" for
> artwork.)

why? If anybody could sell a hardcopy of the openSUSE web site I would
be very glad (not that this have any chance to happen anytime soon :-))

> CC licenses make it indeed very easy to pick a variant from the
> two questions above, and are also a *lot* easier to understand.

* and it's very easy to pick a non free one (when there is no non free
GPL :-)
* the simplicity is simply a fake. The CC summary *have no value at
all*, as have no value the preambule of the GPL. Only the full text
have value and if you don't read it, you don't know what you sign for.
And CC is evolving also.

Alas the licence problem can't be easy!

When one see "GPL" or "GFDL", he mostly know what it's about:
copyleft, viral licence (derived work must have the same licence).
When somebody see the CC licence he is obliged to go to the cc site to
know what variant it is (who ever learn the meaning of several two
letters logo?)

> We actually *want* people to reuse what we do, at the very least
> as far as marketing and artwork material goes.

if so, makes the content completely free, without any limitation. wiki
can't use attribution (who knows who is the author?), and SA (share
alike) have also little meaning on an wiki.

but please, don't think I like better GPL against CC, In fact I'm as
confused as anybody here, I try simply to remove the idea that there
is a simple solution :-(.

We probably have to let this apart for some time (I don't see any
emergency), build the foundation that could at least give us some
entity to own the rights :-). Then have a large discussion and a vote,
may be, to choose the licence to be used. In fact probably:

* what licence we will have for any "official" openSUSE product;
* what licences (notice the "s") are usable for work done in our name
("you can use the openSUSE name if your work uses one of the following
licences...")
* what licences make a product accepted in the OSS repo, in the
non-OSS, completely refused...

jdd
NB: reading this is probably the first thing to do:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm, but not the last :-(


-- 
http://www.dodin.net
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgxog7_clip-l-ombre-et-la-lumiere-3-bad-pigeons_music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGgv_ZFtV14
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx