Aaron Turner wrote:
> I understand that a lot of people are willing to take that risk, and I
> suppose that's their choice. But IMHO the OSWG should look at this sort
> of thing and think what is best for the community (specifically the
> end-user whom you're trying to help) and try to pursuade authors to act
> accordingly. The problem with choices, with regards to licenses, is that
> few people really realize the implication of their choices; so it's all
> too easy to make the wrong choice.
I can see "trying to persuade authors" to release stuff under licenses
that allow for it to be freely modified (and, therefore, also
translated), but I don't think we should _require_ it. Yes, we can
strongly suggest particular licensing, and we can write an explanation
about it for the website, etc. In the end, however, it's up to the
copyright holder to pick the license he/she releases that copyrighted
material under. And I still think that any docs are better than no
docs, even if they don't include this particular licensing allowance.
Also, under no circumstances should "persuading" become "browbeating"
:) If someone chooses a particular license after considering for a
while, they shouldn't get flamed for it. We, as individuals and as an
organization, have to respect the wishes of the copyright holder. To do
anything else would border on fanaticism, which is uncool.
The spectrum from "free" to "non-free" is a wide one. All I want to do
is set a point on that spectrum where anything "less free" is not
allowable into the OSWG documentation set, and anything on the "more
free" side is. This is just our opportunity to set the baseline level
of allowable freedom.
One thing that could be very cool is if folks could write an explanation
of their favourite license (or whatever licenses they happen to know
well). No this would not be "legal advice" and would not be presented
as such, they would just be "these licenses, and how we understand them"
human-language (as opposed to legalese) explanations of what each
license does and doesn't allow (and why it's good/bad) for people who
haven't as much experience with these things.
I think that these explanations, while not to be considered "legal
consel" in any way, shape, or form, would be useful on the site to help
explain the differences between the various licenses to people who don't
understand them. But then, perhaps that's a dangerous road to wander
down.
- deb
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
