What license for Worg?

What license for Worg?

[Bastien]

Hi all,

what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?

Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
3.0[3] license.  This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
from Worg and put them into Org manual for later inclusion in Emacs,
which uses GFDL 1.3 for the Emacs manual.

Would any Worg contributor have objection to this?

I'm open to any suggestion, please let ideas flow.

Thanks,

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
[2] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html          
[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

-- 
 Bastien

Re: What license for Worg?

[David Maus]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

Bastien wrote:
>Hi all,

>what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?

>Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
>GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
>3.0[3] license.  This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
>from Worg and put them into Org manual for later inclusion in Emacs,
>which uses GFDL 1.3 for the Emacs manual.

>Would any Worg contributor have objection to this?

No objection.  Would have suggested the same.

Best,
  -- David
--
OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6
Jabber.... dmjena@jabber.org
Email..... dmaus@ictsoc.de

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: What license for Worg?

[Bernt Hansen]

David Maus <dmaus@ictsoc.de> writes:

> Bastien wrote:
>>Hi all,
>
>>what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
>
>>Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
>>GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
>>3.0[3] license.  This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
>>from Worg and put them into Org manual for later inclusion in Emacs,
>>which uses GFDL 1.3 for the Emacs manual.
>
>>Would any Worg contributor have objection to this?
>
> No objection.  Would have suggested the same.

No objection here either.

-Bernt

Re: What license for Worg?

[Ian Barton]

> what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
> 
> Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
> GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
> 3.0[3] license.  This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
> from Worg and put them into Org manual for later inclusion in Emacs,
> which uses GFDL 1.3 for the Emacs manual.
> 
> Would any Worg contributor have objection to this?
> 
That's fine with me. However, I think you may have to begin the long and
tedious task of identifying all contributors to Worg and asking their
permission. If this isn't done we may end up with "Free" and "Non free"
versions of Worg.

Ian.

Re: What license for Worg?

[tycho garen]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Bastien wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
> 
> Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
> GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
> 3.0[3] license.  This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
> from Worg and put them into Org manual for later inclusion in Emacs,
> which uses GFDL 1.3 for the Emacs manual.
> 
> Would any Worg contributor have objection to this?
> 
> I'm open to any suggestion, please let ideas flow.

This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is
that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm
not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but
it's worth considering. 

My impulse for free-software-style writing projects is to use the
emacs wiki license statement which says CC-BY-SA/GFDL/GPL 3 or later
(with a clarification of what constitutes "corresponding source
code"), but that might be a bit vague in some cases. 

Cheers! 
sam

-- 
tycho(ish) @
 garen@tychoish.com
  http://www.tychoish.com/
  http://www.cyborginstitute.com/
  "don't get it right, get it written" -- james thurber

Re: What license for Worg?

[Bastien]

Hi Ian,

Ian Barton <lists@manor-farm.org> writes:

> However, I think you may have to begin the long and
> tedious task of identifying all contributors to Worg and asking their
> permission. 

Yes I will.

> If this isn't done we may end up with "Free" and "Non free"
> versions of Worg.

I hope every contributor will be okay with the licensing scheme.  
That's the purpose of me asking the community for feedback :)

-- 
 Bastien

Re: What license for Worg?

[Bastien]

Hi Tycho,

tycho garen <garen@tychoish.com> writes:

> This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is
> that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm
> not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but
> it's worth considering. 

Mhh.. yes, you're right.

> My impulse for free-software-style writing projects is to use the
> emacs wiki license statement which says CC-BY-SA/GFDL/GPL 3 or later
> (with a clarification of what constitutes "corresponding source
> code"), but that might be a bit vague in some cases. 

Here is what I read at the bottom of every emacswiki.org page:

  This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public
  License. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work under any
  other license that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or
  distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction
  that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the
  same restriction. For example, you may choose to receive this work
  under the GNU Free Documentation License, the CreativeCommons
  ShareAlike License, the XEmacs manual license, or similar licenses.

So this is GPLv2.  Any idea why this isn't GPLv3?

Also, I find the formulation a bit confusing.  Is it the standard
formulation when multi-licensing?  Where can I found an example of a
clear multi-licensing statement?

I've not made up my mind yet, but I would go for something like that:  

  The content of the Worg website is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and
  the GPLv3 and the GFDL 1.3.  You can choose to receive the content of
  Worg under any of these three licenses.

Good?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: What license for Worg?

[Bastien]

Or we might also consider CC0:

  http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

It looks way more simple to me.

It also circumvents the problem of people having to sign the FSF papers
if the Org/Emacs manuals include part of the code they contributed to
Worg as examples.

What people think?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Re: What license for Worg?

[Ian Barton]

On 04/08/10 06:36, Bastien wrote:
> Or we might also consider CC0:
> 
>   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> 
> It looks way more simple to me.
> 
> It also circumvents the problem of people having to sign the FSF papers
> if the Org/Emacs manuals include part of the code they contributed to
> Worg as examples.
> 
> What people think?
> 
Hi Bastien,

The Software Freedom Law Centre has some good guidelines on licensing.
Specificall you might want to look at:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html#x1-120002.4
and
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

Ian.

Re: What license for Worg?

[Sebastian Rose]

Hi Bastien,

Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
>
> Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
> GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
> 3.0[3] license.  This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
> from Worg and put them into Org manual for later inclusion in Emacs,
> which uses GFDL 1.3 for the Emacs manual.


I'm OK with wathever licensing is neccessary to support Org mode and
Emacs.


  Sebastian

Re: Re: What license for Worg?

[Bastien]

Ian Barton <lists@manor-farm.org> writes:

> The Software Freedom Law Centre has some good guidelines on licensing.
> Specificall you might want to look at:
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html#x1-120002.4
> and
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

Thanks.  I will check this carefully.  My aim is to make a decision on
the licensing scheme for Worg by the end of next week.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Re: What license for Worg?

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 04.08.2010 07:36, schrieb Bastien:
> Or we might also consider CC0:
>
>    http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
> It looks way more simple to me.
>
> It also circumvents the problem of people having to sign the FSF papers
> if the Org/Emacs manuals include part of the code they contributed to
> Worg as examples.
>
> What people think?
>


Hi Bastien,

that's an interesting proposal, I'm glad seeing you
reflecting the matter.

Please permet first clarifying a little bit: we can't
speek of FSF papers as such, it's very different one.

The FSF disclaimer is perfectly ok IMO and should be
sufficient for any distributor.

The other paper, obliging the author to indemnities
towards the FSF even in cases of false accusations,
stipulating US-courts and US-law as the only
relevant, is a human rights violation.

Bien sure, that hat not been the intention of RMS and
the other developers. Nonetheless, in fact it's not
different from the famous Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which
first time in newer history stipulated US-law for all
the others too.

Copyright assignment is an essay not to defend, but to
attack. It trys software as a weapon. This deplorable
idea we see inside the GPL too BTW, marking a cultural
gab between post-communist Europe and US.

In consideration which was said above, your proposal
probably will not be accepted by FSF, as a non-existing
copyright can't be assigned any more. :-)

CC to RMS.

Andreas

--
https://code.launchpad.net/~a-roehler/python-mode
https://code.launchpad.net/s-x-emacs-werkstatt/

Re: What license for Worg?

[tycho garen]

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:36:45AM +0200, Bastien wrote:

> Here is what I read at the bottom of every emacswiki.org page:
> 
>   This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public
>   License. [..]

> So this is GPLv2.  Any idea why this isn't GPLv3?

No clue. I must confess that I'm writing this email without the
benefit of a net connection, so I can't check if emacs itself has
moved to GPLv3. If it hasn't I can imagine wanting to keep emacs wiki
compatible with emacs itself. 

> Also, I find the formulation a bit confusing.  Is it the standard
> formulation when multi-licensing?  Where can I found an example of a
> clear multi-licensing statement?

I'm not a lawyer or even particularly interested in the technicalities
of such, but I do think that the emacs-wiki statement errs on the side
of being human intelligible at the expense of concision. 

> I've not made up my mind yet, but I would go for something like that:  
> 
>   The content of the Worg website is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and
>   the GPLv3 and the GFDL 1.3.  You can choose to receive the content of
>   Worg under any of these three licenses.
> 
> Good?

I'd include "or later" statements, so that Worg can optionally take
advantage of any updates to these licenses if they are revised to fix
issues that arise (which is, again, the same as emacs itself.) More
than anything, the "or later" statements, reduce potential future
headache. Perhaps something like 

   The content of the Worg website is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0
   (or later) and the GNU GPLv3 (or later) and the GNU FDL 1.3 (or
   later). You can choose to receive the content of Worg under any of
   these three licenses.

Again, just a thought. 

Cheers,
sam
-- 
tycho(ish) @
 garen@tychoish.com
  http://www.tychoish.com/
  http://www.cyborginstitute.com/
  "don't get it right, get it written" -- james thurber

Re: What license for Worg?

[David Maus]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1872 bytes --]

Bastien wrote:
>Hi Tycho,

>tycho garen <garen@tychoish.com> writes:

>> This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is
>> that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm
>> not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but
>> it's worth considering.

>Mhh.. yes, you're right.

>> My impulse for free-software-style writing projects is to use the
>> emacs wiki license statement which says CC-BY-SA/GFDL/GPL 3 or later
>> (with a clarification of what constitutes "corresponding source
>> code"), but that might be a bit vague in some cases.

>Here is what I read at the bottom of every emacswiki.org page:

>  This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public
>  License. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work under any
>  other license that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or
>  distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction
>  that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the
>  same restriction. For example, you may choose to receive this work
>  under the GNU Free Documentation License, the CreativeCommons
>  ShareAlike License, the XEmacs manual license, or similar licenses.

>So this is GPLv2.  Any idea why this isn't GPLv3?

>Also, I find the formulation a bit confusing.  Is it the standard
>formulation when multi-licensing?  Where can I found an example of a
>clear multi-licensing statement?

IIRC there was some back and forth about compatibility of this
statement and the GPL, but cannot remember where I read this.  This is
obvious, but why not just drop a message to FSF legal team with the
question about this issue?  After all, Org mode is part of Gnu Emacs
and Worg is Org's community page.

Best,
  -- David
--
OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6
Jabber.... dmjena@jabber.org
Email..... dmaus@ictsoc.de

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: What license for Worg?

[Memnon Anon]

Hi,

> IIRC there was some back and forth about compatibility of this
> statement and the GPL, but cannot remember where I read this.  

Thats exactly what I remembered, and I searched gmane for it.
This topic (emacswiki and license) came up when bzr was adopted
and the main document for transition was on emacswiki.

If this is the thread you are referring to, its 
the one starting with this message:

,---
| From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
| Subject: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs
| Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
| Date: 2009-11-23 02:29:13 GMT (37 weeks, 23 hours and 4 minutes ago)
| 
| http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/BzrForEmacsDevs
| allows GPL version 2, but not the current version.
| This is not a good thing.  Would the author(s) please
| change it to allow future versions of the GNU GPL as well?
| The documentation we recommend to Emacs developers has to
| set a good example for licensing as well as have useful
| information.
| 
| Are there other pages on emacswiki.org which have this problem?
`----

Memnon

Re: What license for Worg?

[Bastien]

David Maus <dmaus@ictsoc.de> writes:

> IIRC there was some back and forth about compatibility of this
> statement and the GPL, but cannot remember where I read this.  This is
> obvious, but why not just drop a message to FSF legal team with the
> question about this issue?

I'm in touch with RMS about this issue.  Will follow-up on the list very
soon.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: What license for Worg?

[Eric S Fraga]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 601 bytes --]

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:26:19 +0200, Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> Ian Barton <lists@manor-farm.org> writes:
> 
> > However, I think you may have to begin the long and
> > tedious task of identifying all contributors to Worg and asking their
> > permission. 
> 
> Yes I will.
> 
> > If this isn't done we may end up with "Free" and "Non free"
> > versions of Worg.
> 
> I hope every contributor will be okay with the licensing scheme.  
> That's the purpose of me asking the community for feedback :)

I've contributed only a little but I'm okay with this in any case!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 75 bytes --]

-- 
Eric S Fraga
GnuPG: 8F5C 279D 3907 E14A 5C29  570D C891 93D8 FFFC F67D

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode