Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:26, James Cox wrote: - a small number of people have acclaim for the documentation. And whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but by many more people. People like Harmut should be on the front page of the manual, and he's not - and that's a bad thing. The Editor title in this context is meant as a team manager or overseer, not like an editor in a traditional book-writing context. - Stig
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 21:55, Georg Richter wrote: On Wednesday, 6. February 2002 02:26, James Cox wrote: As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we want to be - it's something i personally shy away from due to it's restrictiveness. There are many other open source documentation licenses, and we should probably be looking at them. +2 AFAIC, we should ditch the GPL ASAP. - Stig
RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
Guys, has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to contact those who currently hold the license? Thanks, james
RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
For those of you in the following list, and on this list, could you comment on changing the documentation license? Stig Sæther Bakken Alexander Aulbach Egon Schmid Jim Winstead Lars Torben Wilson Rasmus Lerdorf Andrei Zmievski Jouni Ahto Thank You, james -Original Message- From: James Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 2:37 PM To: phpdoc Subject: RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License Guys, has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to contact those who currently hold the license? Thanks, james
RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
On Sat, 2002-02-09 at 07:36, James Cox wrote: Guys, has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to contact those who currently hold the license? I have contacted New Riders regarding the license for the Zend engine docs. I have yet to hear a response. I will ask again in a few days. --zak
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
From: James Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: phpdoc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:36 PM Subject: RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License has anything happened with this? Egon, have you started to contact those who currently hold the license? No, I think every copyright holder reads the PHP-DOC mailing list. As you can see, the Zend API license on zend.com use the options A and B. Rasmus said, that this option shouldn´t be used. The special license in the manual looks not valid, because it is only a link to http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ and therefor doesn´t say something about the options to use or not to use. -Egon
RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
Egon, from ZendAPI LICENSE file: OPEN PUBLICATION LICENSE I. REQUIREMENTS ON BOTH UNMODIFIED AND MODIFIED VERSIONS The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this license or an incorporation of it by reference (with any options elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is displayed in the reproduction. Proper form for an incorporation by reference is as follows: Copyright (c) 2000 by Zend Technologies, Ltd. This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). The reference must be immediately followed with the following terms: A. Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Substantive modification is defined as a change to the content of the document, and excludes mere changes in format or typographical corrections. B. Commercial distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. Other than as otherwise set forth herein, commercial redistribution of Open Publication-licensed material is permitted. Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with respect to the title. II. COPYRIGHT The copyright to each Open Publication is owned by its author(s) or designee. III. SCOPE OF LICENSE The following license terms apply to all Open Publication works, unless otherwise explicitly stated in the document. Mere aggregation of Open Publication works or a portion of an Open Publication work with other works or programs on the same media shall not cause this license to apply to those other works. The aggregate work shall contain a notice specifying the inclusion of the Open Publication material and appropriate copyright notice. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this license is found to be unenforceable in any jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the license remain in force. NO WARRANTY. Open Publication works are licensed and provided as is without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or a warranty of non-infringement. IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the following requirements: 1) The modified version must be labeled as such. 2) The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated. 3) Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be retained according to normal academic citation practices. 4) The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. 5) The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author's (or authors') permission. V. GOOD-PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the requirements of this license, it is requested from and strongly recommended of redistributors that: 1) If you are distributing Open Publication works on hardcopy or CD-ROM, you provide email notification to the authors of your intent to redistribute at least thirty days before your manuscript or media freeze, to give the authors time to provide updated documents. This notification should describe modifications, if any, made to the document. 2) All substantive modifications (including deletions) be either clearly marked up in the document or else described in an attachment to the document. Finally, while it is not mandatory under this license, it is considered good form to offer a free copy of any hardcopy and CD-ROM expression of an Open Publication-licensed work to its author(s). VI. ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS A. Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Substantive modification is defined as a change to the content of the document, and excludes mere changes in format or typographical corrections. B. Commercial distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
As far as the license clauses that Rasmus mentioned, i think these are it: VI. ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS A. Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Substantive modification is defined as a change to the content of the document, and excludes mere changes in format or typographical corrections. B. Commercial distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. and based on that assumption, i think that they are acceptable, but with modification to state without the acknowledgement of the PHP documentation team, available at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. The point being there is that it wouldn't be so prohibitive, but would allow for us to know of works that will use it. but that's just my 2 cents. :) james
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
From: James Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Egon, from ZendAPI LICENSE file: I have read this myself. No need to post it to the mailing list. You can read it also in Till and Tobia´s book ´Web Application Development with PHP 4.0´. -Egon
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
From: James Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as the license clauses that Rasmus mentioned, i think these are it: VI. ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS A. Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Substantive modification is defined as a change to the content of the document, and excludes mere changes in format or typographical corrections. B. Commercial distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. and based on that assumption, i think that they are acceptable, but with modification to state without the acknowledgement of the PHP documentation team, available at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. The point being there is that it wouldn't be so prohibitive, but would allow for us to know of works that will use it. With that modification it would no longer be the original Open Publication License. And what about the PEAR documentation? -Egon
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
With that modification it would no longer be the original Open Publication License. And what about the PEAR documentation? The original is fine, as it states 'The copyright holder'. So this need no modification. PEAR doc license is not our business. It's a different story, and as PEAR docs are not part of phpdoc, and are not going to be part of it, there's no need to consider PEAR doc issues IMHO. Goba
RE: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:26, James Cox wrote: - a small number of people have acclaim for the documentation. And whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but by many more people. People like Harmut should be on the front page of the manual, and he's not - and that's a bad thing. The Editor title in this context is meant as a team manager or overseer, not like an editor in a traditional book-writing context. Yea, i understand that - but it's not all that clear. Essentially, this is a book, so being called editor appropriates certain things. :) The point is, though, -- i don't obviously want to demote or denegrate anything that anyone has done for the documentation project so far -- but i think that a small covert number of people having all control is just not useful here. I also am not entirely sure either for the way to go forward. Obviously nothing can be done unless all the documentation group agree... Egon, would you be willing to give a call to arms to that collective so we may be able to discuss things here? Thanks for all your co-operations too. It's nice to see that there aren't lots of people heavily opposed to change. :) james
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
read the archives, and no Egon, i don't want to hear from your lawyers. *g* - a small number of people have acclaim for the documentation. And whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but by many Yes. At http://www.php.net/manual/en/copyright.php it says This manual is Copyright [...] by the PHP Documentation Group. The members of this group are listed on the front page of this manual. Does this mean, only _these_ are members of the doc team? I don't have a big problem with this sentence concerning my person, since I did not _that_ much, other people did. But there are some people who definately deserve it, to be on the front page. I dont want to annoy Egon, but, shouldn't there be at least a sentence like ...and numerous other helpers? more people. People like Harmut should be on the front page of the manual, and he's not - and that's a bad thing. ACK. - a small number of people religiously hold control over the Documentation. This is bad, and does not help or encourage new people to take part. ACK. - If i want/see a need to make a change to the front page, i shouldn't expect to be shouted at (unless i had broken it, etc). See my try ;) As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we want to be - it's something i personally shy away from due to it's restrictiveness. There are many other open source documentation licenses, and we should probably be looking at them. Yes. I dont know that much about those differences, but GPL is definately not what we (read: I) want. Finally, yes i am aware that this is also due to be discussed at the meeting in march, however i feel it's of importance (given zendapi's introduction to PHP cvs) to start discussion now - and at least have some idea of current general thoughts. I think this was right, to start a discussion which maybe ends in march ;) Mark -- German Gabber Network @ http://www.gabber.de Infos und Tips zu PHP http://www.php-homepage.de
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
From: Mark Kronsbein [EMAIL PROTECTED] - a small number of people have acclaim for the documentation. And whatever anyone might say, it's not edited by Stig and Egon, but by many Yes. At http://www.php.net/manual/en/copyright.php it says This manual is Copyright [...] by the PHP Documentation Group. The members of this group are listed on the front page of this manual. Does this mean, only _these_ are members of the doc team? I don't have a big problem with this sentence concerning my person, since I did not _that_ much, other people did. But there are some people who definately deserve it, to be on the front page. I dont want to annoy Egon, but, shouldn't there be at least a sentence like ...and numerous other helpers? You haven´t understood all terms. The members of this group are members of the PHP Documentation Group and not only the doc team. All members (except the editors of other languages) are working since 1997 for the PHP manual. more people. People like Harmut should be on the front page of the manual, and he's not - and that's a bad thing. I have asked Hartmut to be listed on the front page as an author. He said No until we haven´t changed the licence. - a small number of people religiously hold control over the Documentation. This is bad, and does not help or encourage new people to take part. ACK. *g* - If i want/see a need to make a change to the front page, i shouldn't expect to be shouted at (unless i had broken it, etc). See my try ;) You have to respect my decision. We can not allow all people to change the front page, to become a member of the PHP Documentation Group. As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we want to be - it's something i personally shy away from due to it's restrictiveness. There are many other open source documentation licenses, and we should probably be looking at them. Yes. I dont know that much about those differences, but GPL is definately not what we (read: I) want. I have asked more than once and got no response. Finally, yes i am aware that this is also due to be discussed at the meeting in march, however i feel it's of importance (given zendapi's introduction to PHP cvs) to start discussion now - and at least have some idea of current general thoughts. I think this was right, to start a discussion which maybe ends in march ;) I have also asked about the meeting in March. On this theme I got also no response. I know only that this meeting will be held in March 9 - 10, 2002 in or near Stuttgart. -Egon
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
You haven´t understood all terms. The members of this group are members of the PHP Documentation Group and not only the doc team. All members (except the editors of other languages) are working since 1997 for the PHP manual. Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood this. I have asked Hartmut to be listed on the front page as an author. He said No until we haven´t changed the licence. Well, okay, he does not like the license, and so do I. You have to respect my decision. We can not allow all people to change the front page, to become a member of the PHP Documentation Group. If I would't respect it, I wouldn't revert it ;) I have asked more than once and got no response. Well, I asked dozens of stuff and got no response. Now James started this discussion again and you are free to ask again. I have also asked about the meeting in March. On this theme I got also no response. I know only that this meeting will be held in March 9 - 10, 2002 in or near Stuttgart. Before I don't exactly know what, where and when, I won't say anything on any list, sorry. Mark -- German Gabber Network @ http://www.gabber.de Infos und Tips zu PHP http://www.php-homepage.de
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
Hello Egon, I have also asked about the meeting in March. On this theme I got also no response. I know only that this meeting will be held in March 9 - 10, 2002 in or near Stuttgart. I gave you response during our last usergroup meeting in January. The offical invitation for PHP Doc Meeting will be announced here within the next days - currently we wait for confirmation from the conference centre. Georg
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
On Wednesday, 6. February 2002 02:26, James Cox wrote: As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we want to be - it's something i personally shy away from due to it's restrictiveness. There are many other open source documentation licenses, and we should probably be looking at them. +2 Anybody else?! Where is the problem to change license to OPL or OPL related license? Currently the license and politics of their holder(s) really doesn't improve the Manual (and the spirit of Open Source). Georg
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
From: Georg Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wednesday, 6. February 2002 02:26, James Cox wrote: As far as the actual license goes, GPL is probably not where we want to be - it's something i personally shy away from due to it's restrictiveness. There are many other open source documentation licenses, and we should probably be looking at them. +2 Anybody else?! Where is the problem to change license to OPL or OPL related license? Currently the license and politics of their holder(s) really doesn't improve the Manual (and the spirit of Open Source). Have you a problem? The copyright holders, if you mean that, doesn´t have any problems to change the licence. I need only a acknowledgemt from editors (including editors of other languages than English) and authors. -Egon
Re: [PHP-DOC] the PHP Documentation License
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 14:03, Egon Schmid wrote: From: Georg Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where is the problem to change license to OPL or OPL related license? Currently the license and politics of their holder(s) really doesn't improve the Manual (and the spirit of Open Source). Have you a problem? The copyright holders, if you mean that, doesn´t have any problems to change the licence. I need only a acknowledgemt from editors (including editors of other languages than English) and authors. -Egon I have no problem (read: I would love to see) a discussion on new licencing options. I also think it's important to get things to a state where we can acknowledge a lot more of the contributors. -- Torben Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.thebuttlesschaps.com http://www.hybrid17.com http://www.inflatableeye.com +1.604.709.0506
