Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:41:53AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: +a href=legal/licenses/gpl2GNU General Public License/a; either +version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is ^^^ as a minor nitpick, I would add (at your option) here. I would say its an essential part of the whole structure the at your option bit. It is for the GPL in general. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128135808.ga10...@enc.com.au
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Looking at past discussions in both #238245 and #388141, I believe there
can already be consensus on re-licensing www.debian.org content [2]
under a dual-license MIT/Expat + GPL version 2 or above. Would anyone
object such a choice?
One week into this, it seems no one objected. Most comments have been in
favor of this choice; one comment (by Francesco) would prefer a
different wording but would pick a functionally equivalent license
(MIT/Expat alone). Thanks to everybody.
It seems we've consensus on the license choice \o/
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:57:59PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
+Since @@day@@ January 2012, the new material can be redistributed
+and/or modified under the terms of the a href=legal/licenses/mit\
+MIT (Expat) License/a (which is usually available at
+url http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt) or, at your option, of the
+a href=legal/licenses/gpl2GNU General Public License/a; either
+version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is
^^^
as a minor nitpick, I would add (at your option) here.
Looking forward for David to push the big red button :-)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+
Le 24/01/2012 05:41, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : It seems we've consensus on the license choice \o/ On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:57:59PM -0400, David Prévot wrote: […] +a href=legal/licenses/gpl2GNU General Public License/a; either +version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is ^^^ as a minor nitpick, I would add (at your option) here. Sure, I thought it wasn't needed, thanks for the fix. Looking forward for David to push the big red button :-) Done, it will be online in three or four hours (I pick tomorrow's date to be on the safe side). Thanks a lot Stefano for pushing to an accurate solution of this long standing issue. We'll soon update #388141 to document the status of pages that were edited before now, the relicensing workflow and alike, but I'm really happy to press now the big red button for this first step! Cheers David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+ ?
On Sb, 21 ian 12, 11:08:55, David Prévot wrote: I take it as a remark, not as an objection, and thus propose the attached patch if we agree on the dual licensing (@@date@@ will of course be replaced once agreed on the license choice and its wording). You can have a look at the built page on my test server: +p +Since @@day@@ January 2012, the new material can be redistributed +and/or modified under the terms of the a href=legal/licenses/mit\ +MIT (Expat) License/a (the latest version is usually available at +url http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT) or, at your option, of the +a href=legal/licenses/gpl2GNU General Public License/a; either +version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is +usually available at url http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). +/p The first link leads to a template for the license, shouldn't the site rather point to an own page with the filled out template? There is also Section 4. in the GPL which states ...and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. It is my understanding that the site itself should include a full copy of the GPL... Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+ ?
Hi, Note: the last version of the patch, including Francesco's remarks, is in the BTS [1], and the result is available online [2]. 1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=238245#258 2: http://tilapin.org/debian/license.en Le 23/01/2012 15:12, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : The first link leads to a template for the license, shouldn't the site rather point to an own page with the filled out template? The first link is actually internal, I didn't send it to the bug report (because it's just a copy of the license), but please find it attached. If something is missing, could you please fill the blanks? 3: http://tilapin.org/debian/legal/licenses/mit There is also Section 4. in the GPL which states ...and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. It is my understanding that the site itself should include a full copy of the GPL... Isn't it already the purpose of the proposed copy [4]? 4: http://tilapin.org/debian/legal/licenses/gpl2 Since we already ship a legal/licenses/ directory, I thought it would make more sense to add those copies there, instead of dropping them on the root directory, like opl is (or, maybe soon, was), but if you have a better proposal, I'll be pleased to update my test mirror in order to share it. Regards #use wml::debian::template title=MIT License (Expat) NOCOPYRIGHT=true p Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: /p p The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. /p p THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. /p signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+ ?
On Lu, 23 ian 12, 16:17:11, David Prévot wrote: [snip] Sorry, I've been sloppy and missed the other stuff. I should know better not to do such stuff after a long work day. Great work! Thanks, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ] What do you think? I am happy for all my contributions I have done for the Debian website (which admittedly have not been a lot recently) including any of the scripts or php dynamic pages (if any are left) to be re-licensed under the dual-license MIT/Expat and GPL-2+ I'm not sure if nm.d.o carries any of my code anymore but it covers that. I have no problems with the or later and actually consider it an essential part of the license for GPL. FWIW anything I contribute in future can also be licensed under this dual license too. Stefano, there's a bunch of stuff at SPI I did too, let me know if they want something similar. I cannot remember now what I said about their logo for example. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+ ?
Hi, First of all, thanks Stefano to step in this long standing issue. Le 20/01/2012 13:53, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: If this is what you mean, then it should be noted that dual-licensed under Expat/MIT and GPLv2+ is effectively equivalent to licensed under the Expat/MIT, You're quite right (at least, under most interpretations of the two licenses; cause with these things you really never know...). As in other cases of dual MIT/GPL licensing, the point is being clear in the fact that recipient can choose both I think it would make a number of people (wrongly) think that the Debian Project decision-makers know very little about licenses... I take it as a remark, not as an objection, and thus propose the attached patch if we agree on the dual licensing (@@date@@ will of course be replaced once agreed on the license choice and its wording). You can have a look at the built page on my test server: http://tilapin.org/debian/license.en If my understanding of dual licensing is not too defective, we will be able to drop one of them later if we feel strongly about it. Therefore I assume that Francesco's point can be raised later if it really matters, and thus is not a blocker here and now. Cheers David Index: license.wml === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/license.wml,v retrieving revision 1.27 diff -u -r1.27 license.wml --- license.wml 8 Jan 2012 21:57:38 - 1.27 +++ license.wml 21 Jan 2012 14:54:48 - @@ -10,6 +10,22 @@ /p /div +p +Since @@day@@ January 2012, the new material can be redistributed +and/or modified under the terms of the a href=legal/licenses/mit\ +MIT (Expat) License/a (the latest version is usually available at +url http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT) or, at your option, of the +a href=legal/licenses/gpl2GNU General Public License/a; either +version 2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is +usually available at url http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). +/p + +p +Work is in progress to make the older material compliant +with the above licenses. Until then, please refer to the +following terms of the Open Publication License. +/p + pThis material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draft v1.0 or later (you can read our a href=opllocal copy/a, the latest version signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+ ?
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote: [...] Le 20/01/2012 13:53, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: If this is what you mean, then it should be noted that dual-licensed under Expat/MIT and GPLv2+ is effectively equivalent to licensed under the Expat/MIT, You're quite right (at least, under most interpretations of the two licenses; cause with these things you really never know...). As in other cases of dual MIT/GPL licensing, the point is being clear in the fact that recipient can choose both I think it would make a number of people (wrongly) think that the Debian Project decision-makers know very little about licenses... I take it as a remark, not as an objection, Well, I intended it to be a minor objection (thus a non-blocking objection), but anyway... and thus propose the attached patch if we agree on the dual licensing (@@date@@ will of course be replaced once agreed on the license choice and its wording). You can have a look at the built page on my test server: http://tilapin.org/debian/license.en I would use the classical Expat URL for the Expat/MIT license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt rather than the one hosted by OSI. Moreover, as far as the Expat license is concerned, I would not talk about any latest version, since the Expat license is not given any distinguishing version number: I would therefore just say (which is usually available at http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt) The rest seems to be OK (apart from the very idea of the Expat/GPL dual-licensing, which I have already commented previously). If my understanding of dual licensing is not too defective, we will be able to drop one of them later if we feel strongly about it. Therefore I assume that Francesco's point can be raised later if it really matters, and thus is not a blocker here and now. This seems to be true, even though such a strategy looks sub-optimal to me... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpi82d89m50R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+ ?
Le 21/01/2012 12:28, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote: I would use the classical Expat URL for the Expat/MIT license: […] Moreover, as far as the Expat license is concerned, I would not talk about any latest version, Thank you Francesco for your remarks, attached patch and built page updated accordingly: http://tilapin.org/debian/license.en Regards David Index: license.wml === RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/license.wml,v retrieving revision 1.27 diff -u -r1.27 license.wml --- license.wml 8 Jan 2012 21:57:38 - 1.27 +++ license.wml 21 Jan 2012 16:55:40 - @@ -10,6 +10,22 @@ /p /div +p +Since @@day@@ January 2012, the new material can be redistributed +and/or modified under the terms of the a href=legal/licenses/mit\ +MIT (Expat) License/a (which is usually available at +url http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt) or, at your option, of the +a href=legal/licenses/gpl2GNU General Public License/a; either +version 2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is +usually available at url http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). +/p + +p +Work is in progress to make the older material compliant +with the above licenses. Until then, please refer to the +following terms of the Open Publication License. +/p + pThis material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draft v1.0 or later (you can read our a href=opllocal copy/a, the latest version signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2+ ?
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:57:59 -0400 David Prévot wrote: Le 21/01/2012 12:28, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:08:55 -0400 David Prévot wrote: I would use the classical Expat URL for the Expat/MIT license: […] Moreover, as far as the Expat license is concerned, I would not talk about any latest version, Thank you Francesco for your remarks, You're welcome! attached patch and built page updated accordingly: http://tilapin.org/debian/license.en It looks better, now. Thanks for your time! Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpPeAnCpzLI4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: However, I think you should clarify what you mean by dual-licensing. Dual-licensing is usually intended to mean that both licenses are being offered and the recipient of the work may choose either one, according to his/her own preferences. That is what I meant, yes. Thanks for clarifying. (TBH, is also the only meaning of dual-licensing I'm aware of.) It's the usual meaning, indeed, but... one may never be sure, especially in a situation where dual-licensing seems to be an over-complicated way to license under the plain Expat/MIT! If this is what you mean, then it should be noted that dual-licensed under Expat/MIT and GPLv2+ is effectively equivalent to licensed under the Expat/MIT, since the Expat license's permissions are a superset of GPLv2+ license's ones, and Expat license's restrictions are a subset of GPLv2+ license's ones. You're quite right (at least, under most interpretations of the two licenses; cause with these things you really never know...). As in other cases of dual MIT/GPL licensing, the point is being clear in the fact that recipient can choose both . So that if they know very little about licenses, but they know they like (or can use) one of the two in a specific context, they will be happy without having to know explicitly about license compatibility. Well, the Expat/MIT license is compatible with countless other licenses. Following the same reasoning, one could argue that the Debian official web site should be explicitly multiple-licensed under all of them! I would disagree, but, well, I am not really convinced about the Expat/GPL dual-license, either... You might argue that this kind of communication precaution is pointless for material such as www.d.o content, but after all ... why not? I don't see it as confusing. I think it would make a number of people (wrongly) think that the Debian Project decision-makers know very little about licenses... After all, if someone has to object to this choice on the basis that it is too liberal, they will do the same even if we present it as MIT/Expat only. This is certainly true, but it was not my point. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpBLib6Tfl0t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
Hi! Am 17.01.2012 23:11, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: Looking at past discussions in both #238245 and #388141, I believe there can already be consensus on re-licensing www.debian.org content [2] under a dual-license MIT/Expat + GPL version 2 or above. Would anyone object such a choice? Would me fine with me, however looking through the commits it did over the years I remembered my additions to www.debian.org/misc/awards. I don't own the copyight to those pictures, so we need a exception for that page. Best regards, ALexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f168d05.8080...@schmehl.info
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Mi, 18 ian 12, 13:09:21, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:38:01AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the two licenses and as a consequence the whole site is dual-licensed (as an aggregate work)? The former: people will need to agree to re-license their contributions under dual MIT/GPL-2 license; in the end each contribution, as well as the website as a whole [1], will be dual-licensed. Thanks for clarifying :) Did you consider the possibility that some contributors[1] may object to allowing *also* MIT/Expat? Maybe I'm being too cautious, but some people might consider MIT/Expat too liberal. [1] No, not me, I have no problem to relicense my meager contributions with MIT/Expat only ;) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
* Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org [2012-01-17 23:11:48 CET]: [ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ] Shouldn't that be GPL-2+ (or later option)? With MIT it isn't explicitly needed, but still ... Ah, later in the text you wrote that you mean the or later part, so given DEP5 it would had been more clear if you stated here already GPL-2+ to make that clear in the TL;DR part. :) No objection at all from this end of the globe, neither for past nor for future contributions. Enjoy, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120118134619.ga20...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:09:21 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:38:01AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the two licenses and as a consequence the whole site is dual-licensed (as an aggregate work)? The former: people will need to agree to re-license their contributions under dual MIT/GPL-2 license; in the end each contribution, as well as the website as a whole [1], will be dual-licensed. [...] [1] modulo specific exceptions, like the one mentioned by Alexander First of all Stefano, thanks for trying to gain consensus on the target license for the re-licensing! However, I think you should clarify what you mean by dual-licensing. Dual-licensing is usually intended to mean that both licenses are being offered and the recipient of the work may choose either one, according to his/her own preferences. If this is what you mean, then it should be noted that dual-licensed under Expat/MIT and GPLv2+ is effectively equivalent to licensed under the Expat/MIT, since the Expat license's permissions are a superset of GPLv2+ license's ones, and Expat license's restrictions are a subset of GPLv2+ license's ones. Hence, I would suggest dropping the confusing addition of the GPLv2+: please just ask for consensus on re-licensing under the Expat/MIT license (while reminding people that this license is indeed GPL-compatible). If instead, by dual-licensing, you (strangely) mean that the recipient of the work has to comply with both licenses at the same time, then your proposal is effectively equivalent to asking for consensus on re-licensing under the GNU GPL v2 or later. In this case, I would suggest doing just that, in order to avoid confusion. Please disambiguate: which one is the intended meaning? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpAsN4ivhEKO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, I think you should clarify what you mean by dual-licensing.
Dual-licensing is usually intended to mean that both licenses are
being offered and the recipient of the work may choose either one,
according to his/her own preferences.
That is what I meant, yes. (TBH, is also the only meaning of
dual-licensing I'm aware of.)
If this is what you mean, then it should be noted that dual-licensed
under Expat/MIT and GPLv2+ is effectively equivalent to licensed
under the Expat/MIT, since the Expat license's permissions are a
superset of GPLv2+ license's ones, and Expat license's restrictions
are a subset of GPLv2+ license's ones.
You're quite right (at least, under most interpretations of the two
licenses; cause with these things you really never know...). As in
other cases of dual MIT/GPL licensing, the point is being clear in the
fact that recipient can choose both . So that if they know very little
about licenses, but they know they like (or can use) one of the two in a
specific context, they will be happy without having to know explicitly
about license compatibility.
You might argue that this kind of communication precaution is
pointless for material such as www.d.o content, but after all ... why
not? I don't see it as confusing. After all, if someone has to object
to this choice on the basis that it is too liberal, they will do the
same even if we present it as MIT/Expat only.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
[ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual
MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ]
Hi everybody,
as you might have noticed the webmasters have recently restarted [1]
the discussion on how to fix this and its colleague bug report,
#388141.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=388141#206
The initial idea was to separate two concerns: (a) obtaining permission
to re-license, (b) pick a license and do the re-licensing. The
separation has some appeal: we can fix #388141 without having to fight
over a license to fix this bug (#238245) first :-P
But it has the important drawback to expose us to a sort of necessary
evil: either seek copyright assignment or seek a blanket permission to
relicense under a large set of licenses until we pick one (see [1] for
details).
We can avoid that by reaching consensus on a license before asking for
the re-licensing permission. Which is also a prerequisite to fix this
bug. If we can do that quickly we can avoid both the (not so) necessary
evil and the risk of losing the current momentum in fixing these issues
once and for all!
I've been asked to help in reaching consensus on the license choice, so
here we go.
Looking at past discussions in both #238245 and #388141, I believe there
can already be consensus on re-licensing www.debian.org content [2]
under a dual-license MIT/Expat + GPL version 2 or above. Would anyone
object such a choice?
[2] more precisely: all material under webwml, including original
content, translation, support scripts, etc)
The reasons of the above proposal are:
- According to my reading of past discussions, MIT and GPL-2 seem to be
viable choices with supporters on both camps
- The two licenses are compatible
- Dual licensing, introduced above, is to avoid having a default license
and an alternative choice; both apply
- The or above, introduced above, is to give some future-proof-ness to
the copyleft side, given it supports it
(I understand some people have grudges with or above clauses; we can
drop it if anyone feel strongly about it)
What do you think?
Thanks for your attention,
Cheers.
PS I think it would help the discussion if we avoid comments that *only*
state I'd rather go for $license. If you comment in that direction,
please also clarifies whether you'd be fine with the above option.
Also, please remind that the final word will be, as usual, up to the
actual contributors to the Debian website.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?
On Ma, 17 ian 12, 23:11:48, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [ TL;DR: would you object re-licensing www.d.o content under dual MIT/Expat + GPL-2 ? ] ... What do you think? Not sure I understand: if this goes through will all material be dual-licensed or it's just that everybody chooses one of the two licenses and as a consequence the whole site is dual-licensed (as an aggregate work)? Thanks, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
