[Celinux-dev] Re: Policy Document (for embedded wiki)

[Matt Mackall]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:47:52AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> Bill Traynor wrote:
> > On 10/13/06, Tim Bird <tim.bird at am.sony.com> wrote:
> >> Bill Traynor wrote:
> >> > In thinking over the Policy content for the Embedded Linux Wiki and
> >> > wondering if it's logical to simply adopt the Wikipedia policies and
> >> > guidelines with the following exceptions:
> >> >
> >> > Licensing
> >> > When material is posted to the Embedded Linux Wiki carrying a license
> >> > distinct from the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), the license of the
> >> > posted material will remain in effect for that material.  This policy
> >> > applies to all type of material, including but not exclusive too:
> >> > code, articles, essays, research papers, etc.
> >>
> >> I think we need a stronger statement of open-ness regarding posted
> >> material.  We need to preserve the right to take any of the materials
> >> from the wiki and allow arbitrary redistribution.
> > 
> > Really?  I would think the GFDL already strongly describes the open
> > use of GFDL documents relatively strongly.  In particular, section #2
> > and #3.
> > 
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
> 
> Sorry, my comments were regarding your exception text
> "the license of the posted material will remain in effect
> for that material.", not the GFDL.  I think the GFDL is OK for text.
> I agree with Paul - arbitrary licensing is not appropriate.

I think GFDL is a bad choice of license, especially in the field of
kernel development.

a) it's not GPL compatible (in either direction!)

  This means we can't put substantial code snippets from or intended
  for the kernel (patches, example code) on the wiki without clearly
  delineating that it's under a separate license. 

  Nor can we import or collaborate with the growing kernel
  documentation. This will be increasingly in the near future as
  OSDL's Technical Advisory Board has created a fellowship position
  for a dedicated kernel documentation tech writer.

b) the GFDL's advantages for our purposes aren't obvious

  The protections it gives beyond what the GPL gives are mainly aimed
  at printed works where authorship is a valuable asset (see invariant
  sections), but authorship on wikis is a fairly nebulous concept. Nor
  is printing out a wiki a particularly useful thing to do.

c) it's not even clear that it qualifies as a free license!

  This has been hotly debated in several circles, most notably Debian-legal:

  http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

  For anyone not up on their history, Debian is notable for being the
  origin of what is now known as the "Open Source Definition" as
  adopted by OSI.

Wikipedia's adoption of GFDL is probably historical accident and we
shouldn't follow it blindly. Wikipedia and the GFDL both appeared at
about the same time, and the GFDL was the first license aimed
specifically at documentation so it seemed an obvious choice. It took
a while before groups like Debian had devoted serious efforts to
critiquing its implications or groups like Creative Commons had come
up with viable alternatives.

Further, compatibility with Wikipedia is not terribly important (we
can always link), while ability to mix with the kernel source and
kernel documentation is fairly critical. Which means using the GPL
(v2!).

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.