Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 03/04/2017, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 03/04/2017, ron minnich wrote: >> Could we, please, agree on what the question is; write the question; and >> ask a lawyer, preferably someone involved in the CC license creation in >> the first place? All this

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

Could we, please, agree on what the question is; write the question; and ask a lawyer, preferably someone involved in the CC license creation in the first place? All this interpretation of legalese by coders is bound to end badly. So, first, what's the question? I've gotten lost in all this

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 03/04/2017, ron minnich wrote: > Could we, please, agree on what the question is; write the question; and > ask a lawyer, preferably someone involved in the CC license creation in the > first place? All this interpretation of legalese by coders is bound to end > badly.

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

Hi David, Thanks for taking the time to write this. It was very clear. In the light of your email, and the part of the Creative Commons FAQ that you quoted, I am questioning my previous position. I will clarify what it was, in case anyone is interested. On 02/04/2017, David Hendricks

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: > So, Creative Commons explicitly acknowledges that an adaptation of a > CC BY-licensed work can indeed be licensed under CC0 (or, at least, > that the adapter's contribution to the adaptation can be; which I note > would be

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 02/04/2017, Nico Huber wrote: > As the license doesn't de- > fine it, I can only assume that copyright applies. I agree that copyright applies, but AIUI, the rights granted in the license also apply. > And copyright doesn't > magically jump over to a translator, AFAIK.

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

Hi Sam, On 02.04.2017 20:05, Sam Kuper wrote: > So, Creative Commons explicitly acknowledges that an adaptation of a > CC BY-licensed work can indeed be licensed under CC0 (or, at least, > that the adapter's contribution to the adaptation can be; which I note > would be the entire adaptation, in

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

Hi folks, I do understand Nico's concern that my interpretation of CC BY 3.0 (see earlier emails in this thread) is inaccurate, and I think it is right that, having this concern, he should challenge me to back up my interpretation. However, as far as I can tell, my interpretation is consistent

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 01.04.2017 17:19, Sam Kuper wrote: > In the case of both CC BY and CC BY-SA, the rights granted to the > *recipient of the licensed work* include the freedom to create > adaptations and to distribute or publicly perform them, subject *only* > to a small list of restrictions. CC BY has a shorter

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

Typo/clarity fixes. On 01/04/2017, Sam Kuper wrote: > As such, CC BY grants the creator of an adapted work the freedom to > publicly performed or distribute that adapted work under a different > license. s/performed/perform/ > Respectfully, I think you are still mistaken

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 01/04/2017, Nico Huber wrote: > On 01.04.2017 01:39, Sam Kuper wrote: >> On 31/03/2017, Nico Huber wrote: >>> On 31.03.2017 23:38, Sam Kuper wrote: On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 01.04.2017 01:39, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 31/03/2017, Nico Huber wrote: >> On 31.03.2017 23:38, Sam Kuper wrote: >>> On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks wrote: On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: > Also,

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 31/03/2017, Nico Huber wrote: > On 31.03.2017 23:38, Sam Kuper wrote: >> On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper >>> wrote: Also, to further address Patrick's point above about

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 31.03.2017 23:38, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: >>> Also, to further address Patrick's point above about marketing >>> material: it is important that the

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 31/03/2017, Sam Kuper wrote: > Mallory, a malfeasor, spots Bob's newsletter in a cafe. She smells > opportunity. She creates a derivative of Bob's piece, comprising "Quul > Bal Bal Fol." Mallory publishes this under her own name, claiming > authorship (as she is entitled

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: >> Also, to further address Patrick's point above about marketing >> material: it is important that the provenance of information about >> Coreboot can be

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: > Also, to further address Patrick's point above about marketing > material: it is important that the provenance of information about > Coreboot can be established. This is a reputational matter. That means > it is

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 31/03/2017, Timothy Pearson wrote: > On 03/31/2017 11:17 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: >> On 30/03/2017, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: >>> I'd go with CC-BY for the simple reason that documentation acts as >>> marketing material which should

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/31/2017 11:17 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 30/03/2017, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: >> I'd go with CC-BY for the simple reason that documentation acts as >> marketing material which should see the widest distribution

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 30/03/2017, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > I'd go with CC-BY for the simple reason that documentation acts as > marketing material which should see the widest distribution possible. This does not make sense to me. CC BY-SA would not hinder distribution of

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

The wiki is mostly dead, its data mostly useless. Whatever we'll build as its replacement can start with a new, clear license system, and wiki content is either relicensed by its author and then ported over or deleted/rewritten. I'd go with CC-BY for the simple reason that documentation acts as

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 28/03/2017, Dumitru Ursu wrote: > On 03/22/2017 12:39 AM, Martin Roth wrote: >> I guess I dislike this as a reason for choosing our license. If some >> future Stack Exchange replacement comes along using a different >> license, what then? We're stuck with what we've already

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

This would be a good topic to bring up in the next community chat. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth wrote: >> Is there a reason we shouldn't switch to CC BY 4.0? > > Arguably, yes: doing so would permit the

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 22/03/2017, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth wrote: >> Wouldn't selecting CC BY-SA 4.0 also prevent that, if they're licensed >> at CC BY-SA 3.0? > > No, it would not prevent *importing* it, as the CC BY-SA licenses are >

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth wrote: > So from the start, I just want to say that I'm not arguing just to > argue - I want to make sure we pick the correct license here. Likewise, and thanks for clarifying :) I appreciate your questions and have done my best to answer them.

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

So from the start, I just want to say that I'm not arguing just to argue - I want to make sure we pick the correct license here. I'm not really opposed to BY-SA, but I'm not sure I see the benefit to saying that coreboot's documentation can only be shared under that particular version of that

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth wrote: > Hey Sam. You're absolutely right, and I appreciate you pointing this > out. We need to get this fixed. Actually, as part of coreboot > joining the Software Freedom Conservancy, our documentation NEEDS an > open license of one sort or

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

Hey Sam. You're absolutely right, and I appreciate you pointing this out. We need to get this fixed. Actually, as part of coreboot joining the Software Freedom Conservancy, our documentation NEEDS an open license of one sort or another. Is there a reason we shouldn't switch to CC BY 4.0? - Do

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 17/03/2017, Sam Kuper wrote: > Also: sanity check. Does anyone else here besides me and Timothy feel > that making the wiki documentation available under a free culture > license would be a good idea? A few other wiki users agreed with us, which is great:

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 16/03/2017, Sam Kuper wrote: > Ideally, Coreboot would dual-license the content under the GFDL and CC > BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license compatible with content > from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites. Actually, CC BY-SA 3.0 alone

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 16/03/2017, Sam Kuper wrote: > Looks like there are only 172 additional Coreboot wiki contributors to > account for :) > > curl -s \ > 'https://www.coreboot.org/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers==500' > \ > | grep '^' coreboot_users.html \ > | sed 's//\n/g' \ > | grep

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/16/2017 04:10 PM, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 16/03/2017, Timothy Pearson wrote: >> On 03/16/2017 02:27 PM, Sam Kuper wrote: >>> My understanding is that means that much (maybe all) of the >>> documentation in the

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

On 16/03/2017, Timothy Pearson wrote: > On 03/16/2017 02:27 PM, Sam Kuper wrote: >> My understanding is that means that much (maybe all) of the >> documentation in the Coreboot wiki is proprietary (at least, in the >> overwhelming majority of jurisdictions). IANAL,

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/16/2017 02:27 PM, Sam Kuper wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have looked at a number of pages on the Coreboot wiki, though not all of > them. > > None of the pages I have looked at mentioned the license (if any) > under which their content is

[coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

Hi folks, I have looked at a number of pages on the Coreboot wiki, though not all of them. None of the pages I have looked at mentioned the license (if any) under which their content is available. My understanding is that means that much (maybe all) of the documentation in the Coreboot wiki is