- From: Schalk Neethling <sneethling@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:07:09 +0200
- To: public-webed@w3.org
+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