Re: Licensing: feedback wanted

Hey there Chris,

I agree we should keep sa but, would be nice to have a way to funnel 
work that has been done downstream up into the work on the W3C when 
appropriate.

Not entirely sure how this would work. Using the Git(hub) way, the W3C 
Web ED would be the main repo, others would fork and do some work, make 
some additions etc. and then send a pull request that we can then merge 
into the main repo if it fits and adds value.

-- 
Kind Regards,
Schalk Neethling
Web Developer
Mozilla Corporation

On 2011/11/30 02:36 PM, Chris Mills wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Richard Worth quite rightly brought up the issue of licensing of the content on IRC.
>
> I have spoken to the Opera lawyers and worked out that it is all ok and legal for us to move the Opera web standards curriculum material over to the W3C and chance the license from by-sa-nc to remove the nc part - we don't want it to be non-commercial because there are lot of potential really good valid commercial uses of our content that we don't want to preclude it from.
>
> The question I would like ask to ask you for feedback on is this:
>
> shall we go with by-sa. or just by? I think by-sa is best, as I worry what would happen to our material if we didn't include SA. We want the material and any evolution of it to be open, surely?
>
> Any arguments for and against the two options, here?
>
> BTW, I have updated the copyrights page:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/webed/wiki/Web_Education_Community_Group:Copyrights
>
> Chris Mills
> Open standards evangelist and dev.opera.com editor, Opera Software
> Co-chair, web education community group, W3C
>
> * Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
> * Learn about the latest open standards technologies and techniques: http://dev.opera.com
> * Contribute to web education: http://www.w3.org/community/webed/
>
>

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 09:34:10 UTC