Pardon this old doc dinosaur for meddling in this thread, just a couple of comments:
- IIRC there was never a "notes group" as such. It was mainly a mailing list, some code we hacked and some rules of thumb, and whoever had the time will chip in ad do some notes housekeeping once in a while. Ergo, the notes, code and text should formally be responsability of the doc group (which is a changing entity over the years). - Not sure as pointed out by Brandon, that theres is a need for licensing code snippets separately, they usually are exemplars of concepts and techniques, small and simple, and not significant enough to warrant all that work (being that there is a provision for "fair use"). I would suggest the current doc maintainers to use Occam's razor in this respect :-) Now, I am not a lawyer, and don't even play one in RPGs, just a crusty old chemist/code mangler. Keep up the good work. Cheers -- Jesus M. Castagnetto <je...@castagnetto.com> Web: http://www.castagnetto.com/ On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 08:59, Brandon Savage <bran...@brandonsavage.net>wrote: > The "snippet's owner(s)" is the PHP Documentation Group. >> The CC-BY license has this explicit notice (in human readable terms): >> "Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by >> the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they >> endorse you or your use of the work)" >> >> It doesn't say "if you use significant amount" or anything along those >> lines. Whenever, whatever, you copy, distribute, share, or adapt >> anything from the manual or its notes you have to attribute that work. >> As for the manual text itself, that attribution note was intentional >> choice by us when we changed the license couple of hours ago. >> As for the side affect it had on the user contributed code snippets >> and examples in the manual, that point was never realized until now >> (at least not on my part). >> >> > Hannes, > > The CC-BY license states, in addition to what you pointed out, the > following: > > > - *Other Rights* — In no way are any of the following rights affected > by the license: > - Your fair dealing or fair > use<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Do_Creative_Commons_licenses_affect_fair_use.2C_fair_dealing_or_other_exceptions_to_copyright.3F>rights, > or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations; > - The author's > moral<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#I_don.E2.80.99t_like_the_way_a_person_has_used_my_work_in_a_derivative_work_or_included_it_in_a_collective_work.3B_what_can_I_do.3F>rights; > - Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how > the work is used, such as > publicity<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F>or > privacy rights. > > This is the provision from which I derived that fair use avoids > infringement even if credit is not given. > > That being said, if it is the opinion of the group that the CC-BY combined > with the provisions of fair use do not protect someone who uses the > snippets, then they simply need to give credit. > > FWIW I don't see a significant problem here with giving credit. A line in a > README file that says "Some snippets adapted from documentation provided by > The PHP Documentation Group" would solve the issue entirely. The specific > names of the individuals that constitute the PHP Documentation Group are > irrelevant; the license says "The PHP Documentation Group" is who owns the > copyright, so that's who gets the credit. > > I still don't see a significant issue or a reason to change our licensing. > Furthermore, I don't see why we should change our license to help out the > GPL folks, especially when they've shown considerable disregard for the > rights of others in the software community, most recently in the fight over > Wordpress themes. So PHP should help out the GPL community, but the GPL > community screws the PHP community? I think not. > > For the above stated reasons I'm not in favor of a license change at this > point. > > Brandon >
