On 10/11/2010 01:07 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
On Oct 4, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Daniel Brown<danbr...@php.net> wrote:
I'm of the opinion that we should license all
machine-interpretable examples (i.e. - "code snippets") in both the
official documentation usage examples and user-submitted examples
alike - including those from the mailing lists and archives - under
either the MIT or New BSD license, so it was good to see someone else
mention those two explicitly. A simple ratification to the license
information pages would suffice. Exempli gratia:
"The PHP manual text and user-submitted comments are released
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, Copyright (C) the
PHP Documentation Group, with the exception of machine code regions
(AKA - "code snippets") in the documentation or freely submitted by
the public, which is licensed under [MIT/NBSD]."
As suggested in the DFSG FAQ, I think that a dual-licensing scheme
would provide the most clarity and flexibility for the code embedded
in the documentation. (I'd also suggest putting the copyright notice
before the license name, otherwise it's unclear whether it is the
manual or the CC license that is copyright by the PHP Doc Group!)
To riff off of your example:
"The PHP manual is Copyright (C) the PHP Documentation Group, and is
released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. The
machine code regions (AKA - "code snippets") in the documentation or
freely submitted by the public, are also licensed under the
[MIT/NBSD]."
I'm sure that there's a good way to tighten up the language about the
"example code"/"code snippets" a bit. I'm sure we could find a lawyer
or two to review the text, if it would be helpful.
<snip>
I avoid the topic of licenses whenever possible but let's make a decision. It
feels like most would prefer dual licensing for code snippets (despite GPL and
PHP not getting along all that well, ever) so let's do that. Does someone here
have a lawyer friend who will look over the proposed change?
Regards,
Philip
I wwould NOT like to see dual licensing. Aside from any likely
legal issues it introduces unwarranted complexity with existing
and new documentation.
Chris
--
Email: christopher.jo...@oracle.com
Tel: +1 650 506 8630
Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/
