Re: Licensing: feedback wanted

+1 Richard

On 2011/11/30 03:03 PM, Richard D. Worth wrote:
> I think by-sa is sufficient. The only commercial use it would limit is
> one that would benefit a single person or company without any of that
> benefit being shared back to the community. That's not consistent with
> our goal. And by-sa still allows for plenty of great commercial uses.
>
> Also, it would be consistent with MDN,
> https://developer.mozilla.org/Project:Copyrights, meaning we can use
> content from there without having to license it differently, and I think
> we should have a single license for all our content, regardless of the
> original source(s).
>
> Now that I look again at the MDN copyright page, I'm reminded of what
> they do with code samples, and we may want to consider doing the same.
> Notice they require them to be public domain. One thing this does is it
> makes it possible for anyone to take a code sample from our curriculum,
> even if its 3 lines of code, and use it anywhere, without having to have
> a comment above the code that says where it came from, who owns the
> copyright, and under which license it's used and distributed. As our
> goal is not to create a giant library of source code (if it were, a code
> license would be appropriate) but a giant curriculum of which parts are
> code samples (some small, some large), I think this makes good sense.
> Also, CC licenses are not really fitting to source code, and it would be
> I think more pain than worth to license the source code differently
> (with a code license) than the rest of the content.
>
> In short, I think the MDN copyright page is a great reference.
>
> - Richard
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com
> <mailto:cmills@opera.com>> 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 <http://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/
>
>
>

-- 
Kind Regards,
Schalk Neethling
Web Developer
Mozilla Corporation

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 09:34:12 UTC