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

[Preece Scott-PREECE]

Well, presumably the policy could require that any quoted code be
dual-licensed as GFDL and GPL, but I guess I would have no problem with
using GPL. Presumably CC would have the same problems?

scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: celinux-dev-bounces at tree.celinuxforum.org 
> [mailto:celinux-dev-bounces at tree.celinuxforum.org] On Behalf 
> Of Matt Mackall
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 5:20 PM
> To: Tim Bird
> Cc: celinux-dev at tree.celinuxforum.org
> Subject: Re: [Celinux-dev] Re: Policy Document (for embedded wiki)
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 02:10:46PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> > Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > 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!)
> > > 
> > I don't agree, but if it's going to cause problems with 
> contribution, 
> > it could be an issue.
> 
> Any additional restriction beyond what the GPL specifies 
> makes things incompatible because it prohibits additional 
> restrictions. The GFDL's so-called anti-DRM provision is one 
> such restriction, the transparent copy provision is another, 
> optional invariant sections are another.
> 
> Which means you can't incorporate GPLed content into GFDLed (adding a
> restriction) or GFDLed content into GPLed (removing a 
> restriction) beyond what "fair use" allows.
> 
> > > 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.
> > I agree.
> 
> I'd like to see a rationale for using the GFDL. I don't know 
> of any aside from "Wikipedia does".
> 
> > > 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
> > 
> > The analysis in the position statement is seriously flawed.
> > It takes the requirements for Invariant sections and 
> applies them to 
> > the entire text. If you have no invariant sections, as I 
> expect for a 
> > wiki, then most of the objections have no basis.
> 
> For Debian's purposes, invariant sections are relevant. Most 
> of the FSF's docs have them.
> 
> > Please note that I would prefer not to rehash the entire 
> GFDL debate.  
> > I disagree with the Debian-legal conclusions.
> 
> My point is that it's hotly debated, by lawyers and laypeople alike.
> We can avoid this rather large and muddy gray area trivially 
> by avoiding the GFDL entirely.
> 
> > > 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!).
> > 
> > My proposal for the license policy is:
> >  * text - GFDL
> >  * standalone code with no license mentioned - GPL2
> >  * standalone code with a license mentioned - must be under an 
> > OSI-approved license
> >  * patches - licensed same as software to which they apply
> > 
> > Note that the wiki is not SourceForge, so theoretically we 
> could punt 
> > on the code issues, and have them hosted somewhere else.  (It's not 
> > like there's a shortage of places on the Internet to host 
> code - the 
> > CELF wiki could be used for otherwise homeless code and 
> patches.)  I 
> > think it's much more likely that text will move between the 
> embedded 
> > linux wiki and Wikipedia than between the embedded linux 
> wiki and the kernel sources.
> 
> I'm primarily concerned with the ability to quote non-trivial 
> portions of code or text in the text of the wiki. 
> 
> For example, let's say I wanted to put up a page on doing 
> GPIO. It's going to be different on every platform, so I'm 
> going to take the simple driver I found in arch/arm, quote 
> pretty much the entire thing (well beyond "fair use"), and 
> then annotate it, explaining how to adapt it to another 
> platform. As I go, I want to quote API bits from 
> Documentation/ to an extent that may or may not be fair use.
> 
> The right way to do this sort of thing is not obvious if 
> "text" is GFDL and "code" is GPL. The whole page is clearly a 
> derived work, as the "text" part can't stand alone. Is the 
> rest of the wiki a derived work? Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> With just the GPL, there's no problem.
> 
> > Anyone care to comment on the pros and cons of making the 
> general text 
> > GPL2?  The files in <linux>/Documentation are GPL2, no?
> 
> Yes, they are.
> 
> --
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
> _______________________________________________
> Celinux-dev mailing list
> Celinux-dev at tree.celinuxforum.org
> http://tree.celinuxforum.org/mailman/listinfo/celinux-dev
>