Re: developer.mozilla.org licensing
Clover wrote: I'd say we always give credits to the orginal authors and anyone who makes changes to 20% or more of the contents. On our own copies, we can give credit to whoever we like. This is not about cheating people out of attribution, it's about manageability of a large body of docs which could be reused in arbitrary ways. I wouldn't worry about people hosting DevMo pages without attribution as I'm pretty sure people who read DevMo would far outnumbers those who read DevMo pages hosted elsewhere. So you agree that the license shouldn't enforce attribution? Gerv ___ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
Re: developer.mozilla.org licensing
Brendan Eich wrote: Right, mitchell mentioned this just recently, and we were thinking along the same lines. Mitchell suggested Attribution or Attribution/Share-alike. The latter requires derived works to be governed by the same CC A/S-a license. That might hamper book authors. Well, it depends if we want book authors to be able to write closed source books based on our work. Books of sharealike text, such as the MySQL manual, have been published successfully in the past. Good point! I don't. Maybe others feel differently, though. DevMo may wish to link to xulplanet.org and other great doc-sites, but such linking may lead to server overload and outage. If we want DevMo to stand alone, we'll want to try to incorporate all the good docs already out there, as much as possible. That will require getting everyone to agree on license. Perhaps existing sites use licenses such as a CC one already. Can you take a look? There is even less of a consensus around documentation licenses as there is around code licenses (and we have at least three of those ;-). Request for help/buck-passing: anyone else know of large bodies of docs for free software projects, and their licensing choices? Gerv ___ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
developer.mozilla.org licensing
Brendan Eich wrote: Apology: this is a little rushed and disorganized. snip One big question is license. When www.mozilla.org started, we didn't have an official documentation license, and now we pay for it every time someone asks so, can I reuse this for X and Y?. Ideally we'd decide something quickly and easily, without a massive long debate, so I nominate the Creative Commons sharealike license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ . There's a big momentum behind CC at the moment. In other words, we allow free copying, derivative works, and commercial use, with the only condition that doc mods are freely shared. I believe this license would be Free, Open Source and DFSG-free (but I'd have to check.) The possibly controversial bit is that we wouldn't require attribution. That doesn't mean docs won't normally have author attributions; it means that if we get hundreds of contributors (which I hope we do), it's much more manageable from a reuse point of view. Who gets famous this way anyway? :-) Thoughts? Gerv ___ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
Re: developer.mozilla.org licensing
Gervase Markham wrote: Brendan Eich wrote: Apology: this is a little rushed and disorganized. snip One big question is license. When www.mozilla.org started, we didn't have an official documentation license, and now we pay for it every time someone asks so, can I reuse this for X and Y?. Ideally we'd decide something quickly and easily, without a massive long debate, so I nominate the Creative Commons sharealike license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ . There's a big momentum behind CC at the moment. I know that some people have problems with certian sections of the CC licenses; in particular section 5, which appears to state that the licensor is liable in any legal action that may result from the document. See http://www.satn.org/archive/2003_04_27_archive.html#200212947 for more information and http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000153.html for links to more discussions on the topic. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, etc. etc. In other words, we allow free copying, derivative works, and commercial use, with the only condition that doc mods are freely shared. I believe this license would be Free, Open Source and DFSG-free (but I'd have to check.) The possibly controversial bit is that we wouldn't require attribution. That doesn't mean docs won't normally have author attributions; it means that if we get hundreds of contributors (which I hope we do), it's much more manageable from a reuse point of view. Who gets famous this way anyway? :-) Thoughts? Gerv ___ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
Re: developer.mozilla.org licensing
Gervase Markham wrote: The possibly controversial bit is that we wouldn't require attribution. That doesn't mean docs won't normally have author attributions; it means that if we get hundreds of contributors (which I hope we do), it's much more manageable from a reuse point of view. Who gets famous this way anyway? :-) Ideally, I'd like to be attributed for my own docs. Then again, I copy a lot of stuff from newsgroups and Bugzilla and put credits in HTML comments :-p I'd say we always give credits to the orginal authors and anyone who makes changes to 20% or more of the contents. I wouldn't worry about people hosting DevMo pages without attribution as I'm pretty sure people who read DevMo would far outnumbers those who read DevMo pages hosted elsewhere. ___ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
Re: developer.mozilla.org licensing
Gervase Markham wrote: Brendan Eich wrote: Apology: this is a little rushed and disorganized. snip One big question is license. When www.mozilla.org started, we didn't have an official documentation license, and now we pay for it every time someone asks so, can I reuse this for X and Y?. Ideally we'd decide something quickly and easily, without a massive long debate, so I nominate the Creative Commons sharealike license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ . There's a big momentum behind CC at the moment. Right, mitchell mentioned this just recently, and we were thinking along the same lines. Mitchell suggested Attribution or Attribution/Share-alike. The latter requires derived works to be governed by the same CC A/S-a license. That might hamper book authors. In other words, we allow free copying, derivative works, and commercial use, with the only condition that doc mods are freely shared. I believe this license would be Free, Open Source and DFSG-free (but I'd have to check.) The possibly controversial bit is that we wouldn't require attribution. http://creativecommons.org/license/ is the link, so others can read and comment. That doesn't mean docs won't normally have author attributions; it means that if we get hundreds of contributors (which I hope we do), it's much more manageable from a reuse point of view. Who gets famous this way anyway? :-) Good point! I don't. Maybe others feel differently, though. DevMo may wish to link to xulplanet.org and other great doc-sites, but such linking may lead to server overload and outage. If we want DevMo to stand alone, we'll want to try to incorporate all the good docs already out there, as much as possible. That will require getting everyone to agree on license. Perhaps existing sites use licenses such as a CC one already. Can you take a look? /be ___ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
