Mailing List Archive

Creative Commons - Public Domain attribution (valid only in US):

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:41:19 +0000
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> any chance we could get the GuideXML stuff updated to allow for a
>more
> flexible <license/> tag ? i like to put a lot of my work into
>public
> domain but <license/> only allows for creative commons ...
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list
>

--
gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:46:12PM -0500, mario@petrielabs.net wrote:
> Creative Commons - Public Domain attribution (valid only in US):

lemme rephrase ... GuideXML <license/> only allows for
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5
-mike
--
gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list

I think the reason why that license is the only one allowed in
GuideXML is because that's the _only_ license that may be used by
official Gentoo documentation. AFAIK, there's simply no other choice
for publishing official docs under any other sort of license.
Consistency is good; imagine all the problems that might crop up as a
result of various docs having different licenses, or even conflicting
licenses.

On 11/9/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:46:12PM -0500, mario@petrielabs.net wrote:
> > Creative Commons - Public Domain attribution (valid only in US):
>
> lemme rephrase ... GuideXML <license/> only allows for
> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
<em>- thought - emotion - imagery -</em>
http://www.freewebs.com/nightmorph/

--
gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:33:03PM -0800, Jack Dark wrote:
> I think the reason why that license is the only one allowed in
> GuideXML is because that's the _only_ license that may be used by
> official Gentoo documentation. AFAIK, there's simply no other choice
> for publishing official docs under any other sort of license.
> Consistency is good; imagine all the problems that might crop up as a
> result of various docs having different licenses, or even conflicting
> licenses.

i'm not asking for a license which would cause any conflict at all

public-domain is compatible with EVERYTHING
-mike
--
gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 02:54:57PM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> public-domain is compatible with EVERYTHING

I'm a bit in the middle here.

I prefer to have all Gentoo documentation under the CC-BY-SA license. If
someone edited a public domain document but wants to make sure that his
contribution remains attributed, he must make sure that his contribution
itself is licensed while the rest of the work remains PD - and that's one
can of worms we would be opening.

Otoh, I do feel that PD documents shouldn't disapproved. After all, many
great documents are PD or have no copyright (due to the deceased being dead
for more than 70 years).

But I'm totally opposed to making the license tag more flexible. We're not
allowing the Gentoo Ebuilds to be released under anything else than GPL-2
either...

In this situation, I would say that it is best that the document mentions
that it is released under the public domain and it doesn't set <license/>.

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen

--
Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org
Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp
Gentoo Council Member

The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:33:50PM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> In this situation, I would say that it is best that the document mentions
> that it is released under the public domain and it doesn't set <license/>.

will do, thanks
-mike
--
gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list