[GNUz] Fwd: Academics Discuss MS vs. OSS

[Richard Tindall]

Nick Rout wrote:

>>'Material published on a CC license may be dual-published on any other 
>>license, except the GFDL.'
>>    
>>
Looks to me now that _all_ other licensing of the same work is precluded..

>>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.
>  
>
- Simply par for the GNU course, these days?

>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.
>  
>
..I think this must have been what Jim explained to me:

Wiki, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode

"*4. Restrictions.* The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly 
made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly 
digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You 
must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this 
License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work"

The GFDL webnotes recommends that you republish/host it alongside your 
work, & not rely on GNU's URL.
http://www.infohelp.co.nz/gfdl.html

>Of course we are all being vain enough to think someone might actually
>find what we write useful in the future :)
>  
>
Yep. A world awash with data, signal, messages.. noise. All the more 
reason to work hard & contribute something worthwhile (to clarify the 
flood? :)

>>>So my question was, what do you see as lacking in the CC license? 
>>>
Nothing as yet. Fit for purpose. Unless the purpose is promoting GNU?

>>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.
>  
>
- by that I was describing my user experience of the GFLD - satisfactory 
for publishing on: easy to comprehend, employ, & feel supported by.
- all true of CC no doubt too.

>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.
>  
>
All fair comment, & agreed. That's why I provide(d) no argument against 
our Wiki going CC. It is just the excluding of GFDL co-licensing that 
affects me, as a hopeful (gnu) author - not a problem for the LUG.

If I've got that wrong - & thanks for the input Martin (which mail is on 
another machine just now) - I'm happy to be so assured.

Cheers, Rik

-- 
Richard Tindall, InfoHelp Services <http://www.infohelp.co.nz> 
on free open source software:
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 email client & Firefox 1.0.4 browser