On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 02:48 +0900, Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Hi Sascha and mates,
Sascha Manns wrote:
Hello Alan,
"Alan Clark" <aclark@novell.com> wrote at Friday 11 February 2011:
On 2/9/2011 at 09:51 PM, in message <4D536ECC.50002@gmx.net>, Satoru Matsumoto
<helios_reds@gmx.net> wrote:
Yesterday, this topic was discussed in -project meeting. http://community.opensuse.org/meetings/opensuse-project/2011/opensu se-projec t.2011-02-09-16.06.log.html
I appreciate you, meeting participant, discussing this topic and I'm sorry I couldn't join the meeting.
Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
* Which country's copyright law and guidelines should we refer to?
I think this is the most important question here and should be clarified first. Without clarifying this, further discussions would be invalid.
Sorry if I have confused you. The 2 major issues which I want to clarify in this thread are:
1. License of the contents on *.opensuse.org sites 2. Which country's copyright law and guidelines should we refer to,
when we want to draw contents from external sites for OWN?
===================================================================
1. License of the contents on *.opensuse.org sites
ATM, the contents on Wiki (en.o.o and other $LANG.o.o) are published under GFDL 1.2 'unless expressly indicated otherwise'. However, the license for contents on other *.opensuse.org isn't defined (we can only see the description '© 2010 Novell, Inc. All rights reserved.' in footer area on most of the *.opensuse.org sites).
The GFDL terms apply to everything at opensuse.org. See http://en.opensuse.org/Legal
Then it would be better to say this on the bottom of news.o.o, lizards.o.o too. But if i understand this right, GFDL is a bad choose for Webcontent. If we go to: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#addendum we see, that all Documents who are standing under the GFDL must have a Copyright/License Block. No of our Documents have such Block. I think this is a better License for our Documentation (Doc-Team). The Preamble says:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom.
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comparison_of_GFDL_and_CC-BY- SA we can see, that the GFDL "requires" to paste the full License into each new written Document. There is just a Link to the GFDL Site not enough.
Although that would be hard to believe (I mean, I don't think we need to paste the full license terms to *each newly created page* on our sites. And if Sascha's interpretation is correct, that means, WE ARE NOW VIOLATING THE LICENSE!), I think applying CC BY-SA to all the contents on *.opensuse.org sites instead of GFDL 1.2 is the better solution, if it's possible.
So i propose to change the Content from *.opensuse.org to a CC License maybe CC-BY-SA. In that case a Link to the CC License is just enough.
If we can change, the situation would be much better. That's why I asked in my top post of this thread, "Can we ask Novell to apply CC BY-SA 3.0 license for every content on *.opensuse.org including Wiki?" Only the copyright owner - in this case, Novell - can change the license.
2. Which country's copyright law and guidelines should we refer to,
when we want to draw contents from external sites for OWN?
Copyright law worldwide is remarkably uniform, and on most "free use" issues, the same result is achieved. If you're trying to make a use case that's so close to the line that it's legal in, say, England, but not legal in, say, the United States, you're cutting it way too close to the line. Better to just have a good understanding of general free use principles that are universal and stick to those.
ATM we doing so: * We just using a Article in whole for the Weekly News if the Original Article is licensed under CC-BY-SA. * All other Articles who doesn't match this License we just introduce with 2 or 3 Paragraphs.
Wait a minute. How about the personal blog posts from outside of the *.opensuse.org sites which are aggregated to Planet openSUSE but the license for them are not clear?
Planet aggregator does not contain any feed in the source code, so that should be fine. People reading it, copying it should respect the author's license in my opinion
In all Cases we linking to the Original Article and we adding $SITE/$AUTHOR before the Title of the Article.
I propose to use this Legalnotice for the Weekly News:
This compilation is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (unless expressly otherwise indicated) by the openSUSE Weekly News Team. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons 171 Second Street Suite 300 San Francisco California 94105 USA.
If any Article doesn't match this License we can add the Copyrightnotice of the Original Article on the End of the Newsletter.
Maybe this is a solution?
I think changing the license for all the contents on *.opensuse.org from GFDL to CC BY-SA should be done for the first step. In other words, I don't think switching the license of OWN alone is good (that may cause conflicts with other articles on *.opensuse.org). When the change would be done, OWN would be also published under CC BY-SA automattically if we publish them on news.o.o or wiki.o.o.
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