Re: [Otpasswd-talk] Changes in code and documentation. ;-)

[Hannes Beinert]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 18:59, Tomasz bla Fortuna <address@hidden> wrote:
> Dnia Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:15:48 -0600
> Hannes Beinert <address@hidden> napisał(a):
>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 08:58, Tomasz bla Fortuna <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > Dnia Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:40:17 -0600 Hannes Beinert
>> > <address@hidden> napisał(a):
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 07:58, Luke Faraone <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> > send to list
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> > From: Tomasz bla Fortuna <address@hidden>
>> >> > Date: Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 19:53
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Otpasswd-talk] Changes in code and
>> >> > documentation. ;-) To: Luke Faraone <address@hidden>
>> >> >
>> >> > Dnia Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:34:42 -0500 Luke Faraone
>> >> > <address@hidden> napisał(a):
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It looks like you've licensed the manpage and associated
>> >> >> documentation under the GNU FDL. Just FYI, Debian only allows
>> >> >> GFDL documentation if there are no "unmodifiable sections",
>> >> >> such as front/back cover texts, or invariant sections. (see
>> >> >> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 for more info)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No changes need to be made at this time, but just a word of
>> >> >> caution for the future. cc-by-sa-3.0 might be a better option.
>> >> >
>> >> > It wasn't really me, but Hannes who included LICENSE.fdl. At
>> >> > first I licensed README on GNU GPL, but that is for sure not
>> >> > best license for a README and I still haven't give it a thought.
>> >>
>> >> I apologize, I didn't intend to make things more difficult.  I
>> >> basically just followed the FSF licensing pattern that had been
>> >> using for the code.  As Tomasz points out, and as the FSF argues,
>> >> the GPL isn't really optimal for documentation.
>> >>
>> >> > FDL is pretty complicated that's true. I wonder what will
>> >> > savannah-"gurus" say for cc-by-sa-3.0 although it's completely ok
>> >> > with me.
>> >> >
>> >> > I just hope to keep this licensing as simple as possible and if
>> >> > possible have option to switch to BSD later (currently only GMP
>> >> > really ties us down a bit, but only a bit as it's LGPL). Can you
>> >> > sent your notice to Hannes/otpasswd-talk? (Even forward my reply
>> >> > if it's convenient for you?)
>> >>
>> >> I have no particular investment in the licensing scheme, and am
>> >> perfectly happy to follow whatever guidance you (Luke & Tomasz)
>> >> provide.  Thank you, Luke, for the Debian link above -- I remember
>> >> reading about this issue on the Debian list years ago, but I'm
>> >> afraid it didn't stick.
>> >>
>> >> My sense is that it would probably be best to license the
>> >> documentation, especially since leaving it unlicensed raises other
>> >> issues.  The GFDL 1.3 is slightly more compatible with the CC
>> >> license, and there is some indication that the GFDL 2 ought to be
>> >> even more "free", however it isn't published so that's academic.
>> >>
>> >> I guess it comes down to the following licenses:
>> >>
>> >> 1. GPL
>> >> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>> >> Free, copyleft.  This is the option that seems to be supported by
>> >> Debian.  I do think that there are issues in trying to shoehorn
>> >> code and documentation into the same license, so I'm probably
>> >> disinclined to favor this license.
>> >>
>> >> 2. FreeBSD Documentation License
>> >> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html
>> >> Free, non-copyleft.  This license may make it easier for
>> >> transitioning the project to a BSD license, I suppose.  The
>> >> non-copyleft aspect troubles me a little.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Creative Commons BY-SA v3.0 License
>> >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
>> >> Free, copyleft.
>> >>
>> >> Based on what has been written above, it appears that you are both
>> >> leaning toward the CC license?  That would certainly be fine with
>> >> me. Should we make the change?
>> >
>> > I'm really rather not sure. Is there any tool with CC manual pages?
>> > Probably is, but I haven't seen/noticed such. I'm ok with FDL and
>> > I've already used it few times (even for an RPG game) but it's true
>> > that this 'invariant' parts, covers etc make it's usage harder. As
>> > long as we don't define nothing as invariant I guess it's ok.
>> >
>> > This is howto about it:
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html
>>
>> Well, I think the criticisms -- if I remember them correctly -- are
>> about the invariant sections, the so-called "transparent copies", and
>> the fact that the full FDL must be included.
>>
>> Here are some links I came across.  They won't help much, but they may
>> provide some background.
>>
>>      http://lwn.net/Articles/355546/
>>      http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/46938
>>      Slightly out-of-date:
>>         http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html
>>      https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-docs/+question/37902
>>      https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/newtoubuntu/C/legal.html
>>      https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License
>>
>> This seems like such a waste of time.
>>
>> I grepped my man pages, etc, and could find any that used the term
>> "Create Commons".  It appears as though Debian is okay with the CC,
>
> That's "Creative Commons". I found only nmap with such term (and it has
> huge license information in manual)

Wow.  I must've been distracted.  Two typos in the same sentence.  Argh.  :-)

Yeah, I noticed the nmap man on the web, but I didn't think the one I
had on the system carried the same copyright -- but I just
double-checked, and it does.  I must be going blind.

>> albeit with some reluctance, and it *seems* as though Fedora and
>> Ubuntu use the CC.  I think.  It's hard not to notice that the CC is
>> extremely common for the contents of websites.
>>
>> I would *like* to choose the FDL, but it seems to have some real
>> obstacles -- Debian's position being the biggest one, IMO.  The CC is
>> a possibility, but as you rightly point out, there seem to be few uses
>> for documentation "in the wild" at the moment, except for standalone
>> manuals, where the use is not uncommon.
>>
>> Staying with the GPL, no matter how awkward it is for documentation
>> is, I suppose, another solution.  And, maybe that's the best solution,
>> in fact.  Just stay with the GPL, make Debian happy, and if the FDL2
>> make Debian happy, then relicense the docs to the new FDL.  <shrug>
>
> That's fine with me. GPL for manuals and close-to-technical-description
> manuals which might be relicensed under FDL in future and if something
> bigger is going to be created start with FDL, or I guess better,
> CC-BY-SA 3.0.
>
> I guess for now this is perfectly ok.

Sounds good.  Let's do that.

Hannes.