On 8/8/21 10:21 PM, Adrien Glauser wrote:
Richard, care to refer me to the legally binding sentences on which you base your interpretation that each page qualifies as an individual Document as per the license's concept of a Document?
As a project we have tended to take "The most reasonable conservative legal position" in pretty much all cases because that is the least likely to cause any form of litigation against us. If there is a risk that an interpretation could be interpreted differently by a court in a negative way then that is not a risk we wish to take. Secondly we try as a community to act in the best possible way on these matters which is why I strongly support adopting Richard and Carlos' interpretation on these statements It also matches my interpretation. Given we have worked to preserve a full list of authors even over previous wiki migrations at a minimum i'd expect you to list all the authors. If you can find some legal precedent for your interpretation that has been held up in relevant court then I'd atleast consider your position as supportable although I still wouldn't think it is the approach that we as openSUSE should take because its not an approach that properly respects all previous contributors and the efforts that they have put into the project. If you can't present any such legal precedent then regardless of what any lawyer may or may not say its still something that I would raise with the board if you continue with this interpretation.
Le 08/08/2021 à 14:05, Richard Brown a écrit :
On 8. Aug 2021, at 14:00, Carlos E. R.
wrote: On 08/08/2021 13.50, Adrien Glauser wrote:
Sorry Carlos E. R., I am afraid we have different takes on licenses.
My understanding is based on these sentences:
- https://github.com/openSUSE/openSUSE-docs-revamped-temp/blob/fc965b9e94fdd08...
- https://github.com/openSUSE/openSUSE-docs-revamped-temp/blob/fc965b9e94fdd08...
So, to be sure, the word "the Document" in this context refers to the entire body of contents to which the license applies. It does not at all refer to "pages" (which are just a human-friendly way of rendering database fields and bear no relevance in this context).
This is not acceptable.
I agree. Carlos’ understanding of the licensing of the wiki content is accurate and correct.
Each wiki page is a separate document covered under the GFDL
Each wiki page as its own list of authors, as required by the GFDL. This list of authors is complete, and not just the 5 principle authors which is a minimum under the GFDL, not a threshold for protection under the GFDL.
Each wiki page has its own history, as required by the GFDL
If the revamped docs team intends to migrate/aggregate all those separate GFDL works it needs to consider the authors of all of the pages, not just 5 random wiki contributors of their choice.
-- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from oS Leap 15.2 x86_64 (Minas Tirith))
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B