[SDL] Proposed wiki license

[Bob Pendleton]

Thank you! These are all valuable comments. Anyone want to suggest a
license? When I suggested using the GFDL there were objections to it
too.

			Bob Pendleton

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 16:27, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> d-legal: CC'd for comments, since this is a topic that came up many
> times during the GFDL discussions, and my initial recommendation of
> using the same license for the wiki as the software originated there.
> DFSG-freeness may be an issue at some point as well, since, as Stephane
> observed, it's very likely that text from the wiki could be used as the
> basis for a set of manpages or other documentation, and that could be
> packaged.
> 
> The context should be clear from the quoted text: the license for the
> SDL documentation wiki.
> 
> Note that the SDL list is, unfortunately, set to subscription-post-
> only, which breaks crossposted discussions.  If any useful discussion
> forms on the d-legal list and doesn't make it to the SDL list, I'll
> post an archive link.  (Sorry, folks, nothing I can do about it ...)
> 
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:26:08PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:
> > I am proposing that we use the following as the license for the wiki.
> > Please comment. Even comments on spelling and grammar will be
> > appreciated. 
> > 
> > IANAL and this has not been read or approved by a lawyer. But, I hope it
> > expresses a view of how the documentation should be treated that we can
> > all agree on.
> > 
> > SDL Wiki License
> > 
> > By posting on the SDL Documentation Wiki you are granting everyone
> > everywhere and for all time a license to do the following with your
> > posted material:
> > 
> > 1.The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.
> > 
> > 2.The freedom to make copies, for any purpose, so long as the copies are
> > granted the same freedoms as the original version. 
> > 
> > 3.The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to their
> > needs. 
> > 
> > 4.The Freedom to reformat the posted material into a preferred format or
> > medium (converting to braille, or speech, or hard copy, or postscript,
> > etc) for use with any type of device or technology. 
> > 
> > 5.The freedom to redistribute copies, including modified versions, so
> > long as the copies are granted the same freedoms as the version.
> > 
> > 6.The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements  to the
> > public, so that the whole community benefits, so long as the modified
> > versions are granted the same freedoms as the original version.
> > 
> > 7.Freedom to translate the text into any other language, so long as the
> > translated versions are granted the same freedoms as the original.  
> > 
> > 8.The freedom to keep your modifications of a personal copy, or even
> > your possession of a copy of the text, confidential. 
> 
> #4, #6, and #7 are all part of #5: they're just types of modifications,
> so there's no need to mention them specifically.  #3 and #8 are rights
> that people have, anyway.  I'd remove all of those; extra terms in a
> license only complicate things.
> 
> I'd strongly recommend not writing your own license, and using an existing
> and established one instead.  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/01/msg00088.html
> summarizes some reasons for this better than I can.
> 
> Since this is somewhat imprecise, it's hard for me to critique it as a
> license.  It seems like it's trying to be a copyleft, requiring no additional
> restrictions be placed; that would probably make it incompatible with the
> LGPL-licensed SDL itself, which means that you couldn't take a piece of text
> from the wiki and use it in a comment, or vice versa.  Do you think that's
> important?  (It seems so to me, but my opinion isn't very important here and
> maybe you guys disagree.)
> 
> It would be useful to enumerate the *restrictions* you wish placed upon the
> wiki; from that, somebody may be able to propose a license that does what
> you want.
> 
> Hmm.  Normally, it's useful to use the same license for documentation as
> the software itself; but that's somewhat difficult with the LGPL, since it
> assumes the work it's applied to is a library.  I'm not sure, though.
> 
> CC to d-legal for comments.  Is it a reasonable recommendation to put a wiki
> under the LGPL?  If not, is there any approach that would permit text to
> cross between the docs and the source, with the source being unalterably
> LGPL?  (The LGPL is a somewhat strange license, and I don't understand its
> nuances as well as the GPL's.)
-- 
+--------------------------------------+
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +
+ email: Bob at Pendleton.com             +
+ blog:  www.Stonewolf.net             +
+ web:   www.GameProgrammer.com        +
+--------------------------------------+