[GNUz] Fwd: Academics Discuss MS vs. OSS

[Nick Rout]

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 13:53 +1200, Richard Tindall wrote:
> Ok, I've got the drift of Zane & Nick's question better now.
> 
> It is hard not to feel pressured by 'random Inbox' at times, sorry.
> 
> Nick Rout wrote:
> 
> >My reading of your earlier post was that you preferred not to use the
> >CLUG wiki because the license was CC instead of GFDL, which in turn
> >implies some criticism (or at least a preference of sufficient magnitude
> >to influence a decision about publishing something).
> >  
> >
> 
> My preference comes last, after absence of choice. Offlist conference 
> with Jim - when he was polling us all re List wiki licensing - left my 
> understanding here:
> 
> 'Material published on a CC license may be dual-published on any other 
> license, except the GFDL.'
> 
> I'm sure this is very clear. 

I think the problem, from my brief readings on the net, is with the
GFDL. It seems to come in for a lot of flak, one comment was was to the
effect that "just because the GPL is a useful license doesn't mean the
GFDL is" - but I haven't entirely got to the bottom of it.

The CC license OTOH seems to get a lot of praise for simplicity, ease of
understanding and flexibility.

There is no absolute barrier to dual licensing GFDL and CC, there are
some tips in wikipedia. However a useful solution might be to forget the
GFDL and adopt one of the CC alternatives.

Of course we are all being vain enough to think someone might actually
find what we write useful in the future :)


> So, if I wish to write documents shareable 
> for two or more locations and use the GFDL, then the CLUG Wiki is 
> excluded to me as one of them. It's a choice I've had to make - to write 
> for the Wiki, or on GFDL.
> 
> This does happen to be consistent with my logical preference, 
> however - 
> to not work in support of the myth that "Linux" accurately brands the 
> flagship of Unix community continuity, which is better attributed and 
> united as GNU/Linux.
> 
> >So my question was, what do you see as lacking in the CC license? Its a
> >simple question, this list is about such issues after all. Although IAAL
> >I am no expert in licensing and could gain from some discussion of the
> >issues.
> >
> 
> How the above license choice situation arose - when L.Lessig & RMS are 
> obviously in such close consultation around CC - I can only guess. 
> Perhaps it's RMS's way of encouraging people to choose the GFDL.
> 
> I am comfortable in continuing to use the GFDL: simply functional,

>From my initial reading I am not so sure that it is "functional" - so
many people seem to diss it. More reading is required.

>  and 
> no situation of needing to test it in court is easily envisaged. After 
> all, the content has been released - Free. To me, it's the content of 
> helpful ideas that needs liberalised distribution for testing 
> (prove-adopt/drop), whereas title & profit are less than secondary concerns.

What can be a bad situation is not licensing at all. WLUG have a great
wiki, but all the user input is copyrighted to the original author, and
not specifically licensed. They have had a request for someone to copy
it and use it as the basis of another doco project. Legally they cannot
allow that, as all of the authors would have to agree. 

Practically it is unlikely that any of the contributors would ever some
along and sue, but thats akin to saying "you might as well pirate
windows because if you do it in your own home no-one is ever likely to
catch you". That attitude is hypocritical in the extreme, because the
enforcement of copyright is one of the strongest planks in the FOSS
manifesto. In other words you can't affirm the GPL in one breath and say
its ok to copy and change the WLUG wiki without the proper license in
the next. We are fortunate that Jim was far sighted enough to get the
CLUG wiki contributions on a licensed basis from (almost) the start.


> 
> hth, Rik
> 
-- 
Nick Rout <nick@rout.co.nz>