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

[Gross, Mark]

I asked around and I got the following response :
"We shouldn't be giving them legal advice. However, we may want to ask
if they've looked at the creative commons licenses:
http://creativecommons.org/ ?"

Based on this, I think the CC license is worth a look too.

--mgross

>-----Original Message-----
>From: celinux-dev-bounces at tree.celinuxforum.org
[mailto:celinux-dev-bounces at tree.celinuxforum.org] On
>Behalf Of Soon-Son Kwon(Shawn)
>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:39 PM
>To: Matt Mackall
>Cc: celinux-dev at tree.celinuxforum.org
>Subject: Re: Re: [Celinux-dev] Re: Policy Document (for embedded wiki)
>
>I agree with Matt's concern about GFDL.
>Especially GFDL has had quite debate with debian.
>
>If we really allow/encourage openness, then
>I think Creative Commons is more appropriate
>as CC is the most popular license in the blogosphere.
>
>So my idea is
>- CC for text
>- standalone code with no license mentioned - GPL2
>- standalone code with a license mentioned - must be under an
OSI-approved
>(For CC, by-sa will be appropriate)
>
>And we need to think about URL also.
>I recently found that rt.wiki.kernel.org has opened.
>If we can, then embedded.wiki.kernel.org will be the best choice
>but I don't know how to get that URL and it is only for DNS or
>includes hosting. Right now the kernel side wiki activity is getting
>popular. Valerie Hanson also announced filesystem wiki at pbwiki.com.
>
>Did we make final decision for which URL will we use?
>(We will be able to open a new one or use *.celinuxforum.org)
>
>This is quite important for gaining better community relationship.
>
>/Shawn
>
>
>On 10/14/06, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
>
>--
>http://kldp.org/~kss
>_______________________________________________
>Celinux-dev mailing list
>Celinux-dev at tree.celinuxforum.org
>http://tree.celinuxforum.org/mailman/listinfo/celinux-dev