Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (280 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] CC (english-us and others) versus GFDL
  • From: Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:59:29 +0100
  • Message-id: <20110218005929.GQ3484@hera>
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
For blog feeds (which was the initial trigger of the discussion,
for inclusion into OWN, and potentially also applies to some
extent to, 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.


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:
), 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",

Point 1 is debatable (IMHO: "no" for text content, "yes" for

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.

-o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
/\\ -- I took the green pill
_\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011,
< Previous Next >