Pascal Bleser wrote:
On 2011-02-14 15:44:57 (+0100), pistazienfresser wrote:
Am 14/02/11 12:17, schrieb jdd:
Le 14/02/2011 11:41, pistazienfresser a écrit : [...] no, this nis not valid. there are translation everywhere, but in final only the original text is valid. judges have translators. No. That most probably depends on the user. Why should you write a wiki for a user in Fresh or German if you think she or he would even be able to understand not only normal or technical English but also legal English..
I think literally in every paper for jurisprudence I read on CC-licenses referred on this problem of the GFDL in difference to the adapted versions of the CC-licences.[1]
Right, but the fact that the licenses are adapted to each country's copyright laws is even more interesting. Not sure the language matters that much.
thid is not a thing we can solve here. Why not just use licenses adapted to the different systems?
Well, yes, I'm not sure what you're referring to with "different systems", but we definitely have different use cases, and the wiki content is one of them.
For software, we typically go with one of the GPLs. For text content, we currently use GFDL on the wiki, as well as for the content on doc.opensuse.org For blog feeds (which was the initial trigger of the discussion, for inclusion into OWN, and potentially also applies to some extent to planet.opensuse.org), it is de-facto the license of each individual blog post which ... is usually not specified :\
For artwork, I don't know. There's the "official", branded, trademarked artwork in our "art" git repository [1], and I don't know which license that stuff is currently under.
[1] http://gitirious.org/opensuse/art/
For the marketing and artwork teams (which is pretty much a single team anyway), we started a new git repository and decided to go for CC-BY-SA 3.0, at least for now: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-marketing/2011-02/msg00387.html ), but that's still up for discussion as there isn't much content just yet.
[...]
I repeat the problem is more of a philosophical one.
I personally don't see any philosophical (dude, don't be so French ;)) issue here.
It's just a matter of deciding what we want people/organizations to do with our content (be it text or artwork): 1) may be used for commercial purposes? 2) must modifications remain under the same or a similar license? 3) attribution to the original authors (us, the openSUSE project)? 4) ownership remains with the original author?
I'm sure we can all agree on points 2, 3 and 4 ("yes", "yes", "yes".)
Point 1 is debatable (IMHO: "no" for text content, "yes" for artwork.)
Indeed. The primary concern here might be whether those works can be included in SUSE Linux Enterprise distributions or not - in other words, whether that is considered 'commercial purpose' or not.
CC licenses make it indeed very easy to pick a variant from the two questions above, and are also a *lot* easier to understand.
We actually *want* people to reuse what we do, at the very least as far as marketing and artwork material goes. A license that is easier to understand removes many hurdles.
I rate it just as a very practical decision: Change the probably valid license instead of just stay with the buggy one.. Transfer the (conditioned) right to use in a valid way to the community/all people instead just leave it by the (amateurish) user. Like staying in a obviously buggy system without at least trying to patch it.
Well, yes, but changing the license now, "after the fact", is very difficult, as you know. We would need to contact every single contributor to get their okay to change the license. I don't even think it's realistically feasible.
Hence I'm not really sure how we could change the license from GFDL to CC-* on the wiki in the first place...
Would dual-licensing be an option too ? (CC-* + GFDL) But to be honest, while the CC licenses are crystal clear, I never had a deep look at the GFDL, I don't know whether they're compatible in a way or another.
As far as we can see on Wikipedia, 'Although the two licenses work on similar copyleft principles, the GFDL is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license', while '(GFDL) version 1.3 added a new section allowing specific types of websites using the GFDL to additionally offer their work under the CC-BY-SA license' under certain conditions. But unfortunately, the version of GFDL which is applied to *.opensuse.org sites now is 1.2 :-( # BTW, I've pointed out in another post that 'GNU Free Documentation # License version 1.2 ("GFDL")' at # http://en.opensuse.org/Terms_of_site#Copyright_notice is now linked # to the text of GFDL 1.3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt), but it # isn't fixed yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_wi... And one thing what I proposed in another post but hasn't be discussed yet is, whether we should adopt 'Contributor License Agreement' or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement If we can adopt CLA, I think the situations would be much clearer than ever, but there may be pros and cons for this. So, I want to hear your opinions. Best, -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/opensuse/ _/_/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org