Licensing on koha-community.org
Currently there is a generic copyright statement on the temporary site at koha-community.org. I am assuming we don't really want to go the route of having any individual entity copyrighting the content of the site. If any entity would hold the copyright I'd imagine it would be HLT on behalf of the community, but you all have been at this much longer than I have, so I wanted to get your suggestions. Does anyone have suggestions as to which license, and what wording, to put on the site to license its content in a FOSS-friendly manner? Discuss. ;) Liz Rea NEKLS
http://creativecommons.org/choose/ Greg aka: rhcl ------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liz Rea" <lrea@nekls.org> To: "Koha list" <Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2010 11:24:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [Koha] Licensing on koha-community.org Currently there is a generic copyright statement... Does anyone have suggestions as to which license, and what wording, to put on the site to license its content in a FOSS-friendly manner? Discuss. ;) Liz Rea NEKLS
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Liz Rea <lrea@nekls.org> wrote:
Currently there is a generic copyright statement on the temporary site at koha-community.org. I am assuming we don't really want to go the route of having any individual entity copyrighting the content of the site. If any entity would hold the copyright I'd imagine it would be HLT on behalf of the community, but you all have been at this much longer than I have, so I wanted to get your suggestions.
Does anyone have suggestions as to which license, and what wording, to put on the site to license its content in a FOSS-friendly manner?
Since we are in the process of relicensing the wiki under GPL2, I would suggest we also license this under GPL2 for consistency's sake. It would be good to get all things Koha under the same license. Kind Regards, Chris
Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Liz Rea <lrea@nekls.org> wrote: [...]
Does anyone have suggestions as to which license, and what wording, to put on the site to license its content in a FOSS-friendly manner?
Since we are in the process of relicensing the wiki under GPL2, I would suggest we also license this under GPL2 for consistency's sake. It would be good to get all things Koha under the same license.
There are two good ways to approach this IMO:- 1. much of the other Koha-related materials are under GPL2+, so we should license the community website under the same terms, so all the explanations and arguments made before still apply and we don't have to think about it too much; OR 2. we consider that stuff on the community website is advertising that should be spread as widely as possible, so we put it under a really liberal license like No Problem Bugroff, WTFPL, MIT/Expat or anything else compatible with GPL2+ (just in case it ends up in Koha itself). Personally, as a worker-owner of an asset-locked company, I find it much easier and safer not to assign copyright to anyone, but others may prefer to assign copyright (or execute FLAs or whatever is appropriate) to HLT or some other friendly place that is willing to accept it. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
Hi, On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 3:54 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
1. much of the other Koha-related materials are under GPL2+, so we should license the community website under the same terms, so all the explanations and arguments made before still apply and we don't have to think about it too much; OR
Licensing under GPL2+ would be my preference for "permanent" content such as documentation - but see below.
2. we consider that stuff on the community website is advertising that should be spread as widely as possible, so we put it under a really liberal license like No Problem Bugroff, WTFPL, MIT/Expat or anything else compatible with GPL2+ (just in case it ends up in Koha itself).
I'd be happy with a more liberal license such MIT for things like the news and events postings. Can we do both, or would that be too confusing? Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt@gmail.com
Galen Charlton a écrit :
I'd be happy with a more liberal license such MIT for things like the news and events postings. Can we do both, or would that be too confusing?
if it's very clear & easy to remember, sounds good to me. Something like : - documentation and THIS and THAT is under GPL 2+ - everything else is under MIT, WTFPL, ... -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
Ok, the Documentation definitely needs to be GPL2+. And the content/press type stuff really ought to be very loosely licensed for wide dispersion. So if you (someone out there with a gift for wording) would like to get me some verbiage to describe that setup, I'll be happy to make it so on the site. Thanks for the input, everybody. Liz Rea NEKLS On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 3:54 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
1. much of the other Koha-related materials are under GPL2+, so we should license the community website under the same terms, so all the explanations and arguments made before still apply and we don't have to think about it too much; OR
Licensing under GPL2+ would be my preference for "permanent" content such as documentation - but see below.
2. we consider that stuff on the community website is advertising that should be spread as widely as possible, so we put it under a really liberal license like No Problem Bugroff, WTFPL, MIT/Expat or anything else compatible with GPL2+ (just in case it ends up in Koha itself).
I'd be happy with a more liberal license such MIT for things like the news and events postings. Can we do both, or would that be too confusing?
Regards,
Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt@gmail.com
I'll fix the license on the manual ASAP On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Liz Rea <lrea@nekls.org> wrote:
Ok, the Documentation definitely needs to be GPL2+. And the content/press type stuff really ought to be very loosely licensed for wide dispersion. So if you (someone out there with a gift for wording) would like to get me some verbiage to describe that setup, I'll be happy to make it so on the site.
Thanks for the input, everybody.
Liz Rea NEKLS On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 3:54 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
1. much of the other Koha-related materials are under GPL2+, so we should license the community website under the same terms, so all the explanations and arguments made before still apply and we don't have to think about it too much; OR
Licensing under GPL2+ would be my preference for "permanent" content such as documentation - but see below.
2. we consider that stuff on the community website is advertising that should be spread as widely as possible, so we put it under a really liberal license like No Problem Bugroff, WTFPL, MIT/Expat or anything else compatible with GPL2+ (just in case it ends up in Koha itself).
I'd be happy with a more liberal license such MIT for things like the news and events postings. Can we do both, or would that be too confusing?
Regards,
Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Liz Rea <lrea@nekls.org> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010
Ok, the Documentation definitely needs to be GPL2+. And the content/press type stuff really ought to be very loosely licensed for wide dispersion. So if you (someone out there with a gift for wording) would like to get me some verbiage to describe that setup, I'll be happy to make it so on the site.
No gift for wording, but taking from debian License information and Debian New Maintainers' Guide, I suggest: Except where otherwise stated, this website is: Copyright (C) 2010 the Koha community and author(s) named on the individual pages. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. ------ The documentation section is: Copyright (C) YYY Firstname Lastname You are free to distribute this software under the terms of the GNU General Public License either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This package is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this package; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
participants (7)
-
Chris Nighswonger -
Galen Charlton -
gsl -
Liz Rea -
MJ Ray -
Nicole Engard -
Paul Poulain