Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (280 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] License and copyright issues that openSUSE Weekly News team are coming up against now
  • From: Manu Gupta <manugupt1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:37:23 +0530
  • Message-id: <1297447643.16214.3.camel@sysbytes.sysbytes>
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 02:48 +0900, Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Hi Sascha and mates,

Sascha Manns wrote:
Hello Alan,

"Alan Clark" <aclark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote at Friday 11 February 2011:

On 2/9/2011 at 09:51 PM, in message <4D536ECC.50002@xxxxxxx>,
Satoru Matsumoto

<helios_reds@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Yesterday, this topic was discussed in -project meeting.
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

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 * 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 * 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 * isn't
defined (we can only see the description '© 2010 Novell, Inc. All
rights reserved.' in footer area on most of the *

The GFDL terms apply to everything at See

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: 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.

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

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 * sites instead of GFDL 1.2 is the better solution, if
it's possible.

So i propose to change the Content from * 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 * 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

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
* 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 or send a letter to
Creative Commons
171 Second Street
Suite 300
San Francisco California 94105

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 * 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 * 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.


_/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/
_/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/
_/_/ mail: / irc: HeliosReds _/_/
_/_/ _/_/

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups