Gnu-Fdl or CC Attribution-ShareAlike?

[Lorenzo De Tomasi]

Nathanael Nerode writes "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL" at
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Are these problems true?
Is CC Attribution-ShareAlike compatible with Gnu-Gpl? Can I use it as
the Gnu-Fdl? What's the best choice for a license for software
documentation?
Thank you :-)

[Mike Linksvayer]

Post by Lorenzo De Tomasi
Is CC Attribution-ShareAlike compatible with Gnu-Gpl?

by-sa isn't compatible with anything other than itself.

Post by Lorenzo De Tomasi
Can I use it as the Gnu-Fdl?

If you mean can you use by-sa for free documentation -- certainly nobody
is stopping you, and my guess is that by-sa qualifies or comes really
close as a free license per DFSG.

Post by Lorenzo De Tomasi
What's the best choice for a license for software
documentation?

Maybe there isn't a single best choice. GFDL was designed for free
documentation, and CC recommends it at
<http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/>. Some projects use the
same license the code is released under, e.g., GPL.

[Glenn Otis Brown]

i'll take a look, lorenzo . . .

the compatibility question comes up. current share alike licenses
aren't compatible with any other license. that may change when we
version, but we'll only address the gnu fdl if that's a real problem
that affects lots of people. are people worried about this in the
abstract, or is it a real problem on a daily basis?

thanks,

glenn

Post by Lorenzo De Tomasi
Nathanael Nerode writes "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL" at
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Are these problems true?
Is CC Attribution-ShareAlike compatible with Gnu-Gpl? Can I use it as
the Gnu-Fdl? What's the best choice for a license for software
documentation?
Thank you :-)
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

[Tom Morris]

GNU FDL / CreativeCommons compatibility is a nightmare for wiki owners like
me. I like the CC licence (by-sa), but because quite a number of texts are
taken from Wikipedia which is FDL.

CC seems simpler and there is less lawyerspeak than GNU's licence.

I'd like to be able to build a wiki which has both FDL and By-Sa content in
it.

--
Tom Morris
http://www.bbcity.co.uk

[Evan Prodromou]

TM> GNU FDL / CreativeCommons compatibility is a nightmare for
TM> wiki owners like me. I like the CC licence (by-sa), but
TM> because quite a number of texts are taken from Wikipedia which
TM> is FDL.

TM> CC seems simpler and there is less lawyerspeak than GNU's
TM> licence.

TM> I'd like to be able to build a wiki which has both FDL and
TM> By-Sa content in it.

Ditto here. Wikitravel uses by-sa, but our information can't be
included in Wikipedia or other GFDL wikis.

Then again, I think it might be well nigh impossible for us to change
up to the next version of by-sa, even if it does allow relicensing
under the GFDL.

~ESP

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Post by Lorenzo De Tomasi
Nathanael Nerode writes "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL" at
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Are these problems true?

Yes, there are real problems and copyright holders have hard choices to make
if they distribute free software and documentation under the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL).

You should also read
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml which also
discusses this issue.

The last time I looked at the threads on debian-legal discussing this issue,
some people involved with Debian were going to have discussions with some
people in the Free Software Foundation. I don't know where these talks
stand today.

Prior to publishing version 1.2 (the current version) of the GFDL, the Free
Software Foundation (FSF) collected opinions about the GFDL. They also
published the collected criticisms of the GFDL, but the FSF didn't respond
to people's concerns either by replying directly to them (as far as I know)
or changing the GFDL accordingly (in the bulk of criticisms). So I don't
know what the FSF's counterarguments were to people's criticisms.

Post by Lorenzo De Tomasi
What's the best choice for a license for software documentation?

I am working on relicensing GFDL works under the same license as the program
it documents. I license my distributed programs under the GNU General
Public License (GPL) or a GPL-compatible free software license.

Software licenses aren't always a great fit for documentation, but I think
for the most part they are a reasonable position between being technically
obsteperous and being free.

[Lorenzo De Tomasi]

Post by Tom Morris
GNU FDL / CreativeCommons compatibility is a nightmare for wiki owners
like
me. I like the CC licence (by-sa), but because quite a number of texts
are
taken from Wikipedia which is FDL.
CC seems simpler and there is less lawyerspeak than GNU's licence.
I'd like to be able to build a wiki which has both FDL and By-Sa
content in
it.

Yes, I think that licensing under both licenses (Gnu-Fdl & CC By-Sa) is
the best choice, so people can choose the license they prefer. (read
http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3307)
You can always contact the author and ask his permission for licensing
the documentation under both licenses. You can also talk with him about
the problem and convince him to license the documentation under both
licenses.

The best solution is that CC collaborates with Free Software Foundation
to create a new version of CC By-Sa compatible with Gnu-Fdl and
viceversa.

[Evan Prodromou]

LDT> Yes, I think that licensing under both licenses (Gnu-Fdl & CC
LDT> By-Sa) is the best choice, so people can choose the license
LDT> they prefer.

Dual-licensing is fraught with hazards. If I create a work and release
it under two different copyleft licenses, you have to choose which
license to release your derivative work under. Neither the GFDL or the
by-sa lets you create a derivative work under any license except
itself.

http://www.wikitravel.org/en/article/Wikitravel:Dual_licensing

Wikis are pretty much derivative work factories. Dual licenses don't
really work well in a wiki environment.

~ESP

[Wouter Vanden Hove]

Post by Evan Prodromou
Dual-licensing is fraught with hazards. If I create a work and release
it under two different copyleft licenses, you have to choose which
license to release your derivative work under. Neither the GFDL or the
by-sa lets you create a derivative work under any license except
itself.

Nothing stops you from granting additional rights to the users of your
work.

For example, for my master's thesis
I used a clause "Licensed under CC-AT-SA 1.0 or any other later
version". I added "the any other later version" myself.

If you own CC-SA material, you grant people the right to make derivative
works under "only the CC-SA License",
but you can add the FDL license to that yourself.

Of course the license of the work itself is then not just CC-SA, but
(CC-SA + Additional FDL-compatibility rights)



Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.be
www.vrijschrift.nl

[Evan Prodromou]

WVH> Nothing stops you from granting additional rights to the
WVH> users of your work.

WVH> If you own CC-SA material, you grant people the right to make
WVH> derivative works under "only the CC-SA License", but you can
WVH> add the FDL license to that yourself.

I realize that. The problem is the creation of derivative works. Since
the GFDL and by-sa are not compatible, you have to hack in some kind
of compatibility. Maybe something like this would work:

"You may use this work under either the GFDL or the by-sa, at your
discretion. In addition, I grant you the right to create
derivative works licensed under both the GFDL and the by-sa."

In other words, you explicitly grant the right to create dual-licensed
works. I'm not sure how you would _revoke_ the right to create works
under _just_ the by-sa or GFDL -- that is, forcing creators of
derivative works to license them under both licenses, too, if that was
desired.

This doesn't solve the problem of including by-sa or GFDL work into a
derivative of a dual-licensed work, though.

Work 1 (by-sa or GFDL) + Work 2 (by-sa) => Work 3 (by-sa only)
Work 1 (by-sa or GFDL) + Work 4 (GFDL) => Work 5 (GFDL only)

(This is assuming that the inclusion of Work 2 or Work 4 wouldn't fall
under "fair use".)

I stand by my statement that dual-licensing is fraught with peril. I
wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't recommend it.

~ESP

[Evan Prodromou]

WVH> Nothing stops you from granting additional rights to the
WVH> users of your work.

I'm pretty sure that you can't grant additional rights to users of a
Derivative Work. The GFDL says:


"You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document
under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you
release the Modified Version under precisely this License, [...]''

I guess it kind of depends on your understanding of "precisely"
whether this would allow granting additional rights.

The by-sa says:

"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this
License, [...]''

This seems a little clearer: "only" this license would seem to imply,
well, only this License.

It'd be nice if you could dual-license additional works, but I'm
pretty sure that's not OK.

~ESP

[Wouter Vanden Hove]

Post by Evan Prodromou
WVH> Nothing stops you from granting additional rights to the
WVH> users of your work.
I'm pretty sure that you can't grant additional rights to users of a
Derivative Work.

Simply because you are not the only rights-holder then.


w.

[Lorenzo De Tomasi]

Martedì, 6 Gen 2004, alle 02:28 Europe/Rome, Glenn Otis Brown ha

Post by Glenn Otis Brown
i'll take a look, lorenzo . . .
the compatibility question comes up. current share alike licenses
aren't compatible with any other license. that may change when we
version, but we'll only address the gnu fdl if that's a real problem
that affects lots of people. are people worried about this in the
abstract, or is it a real problem on a daily basis?
thanks,

Why doesn't CC collaborate with Free Software Foundation to create a
new version of CC By-Sa compatible with Gnu-Fdl and viceversa?
Stallmann suggests the use of Ccpls for copyrighted materials, so
probably he's open for collaboration.
What do you think?

[Sunir Shah]

Evan writes,

Post by Evan Prodromou
Wikis are pretty much derivative work factories. Dual licenses don't
really work well in a wiki environment.

I think it's better to go with a simpler license
than a more complex copyright regime, but that
means giving up control. Either you pull control
out of your authors' hands by making everything
"primarily public domain" or you give up control
to use the default copyright, more or less, and
use social pressure to rerelease content under
various licenses.

Otherwise, you're going to enter into a lot of
copyright discussions which are an gunpowder mix
of power and legalese when ultimately you won't
be able to enforce the nuances of your copyright
anyway. I doubt the FSF is going to back a site
that dual licenses as that is outside their
declared scope.

After all, if you don't have a reasonable hope of
suing over the license, it becomes pointless. The
simpler the license the easier it is to make a
legal claim. (Note easier means cheaper.)

Of course, copyright isn't just for the lawyers.
It works very well amongst the honest, so that is
another reason to keep your license simple and
clear. Confusion will just encourage people to do
what they want or misunderstand.

SS

[Per I. Mathisen]

Post by Evan Prodromou
Dual-licensing is fraught with hazards. If I create a work and release
it under two different copyleft licenses, you have to choose which
license to release your derivative work under. Neither the GFDL or the
by-sa lets you create a derivative work under any license except
itself.

I do not quite see why. I always thought of it this way: Distributing one
work with multiple licenses is equivalent with distributing multiple
identical copies of a work, each with a different license.

So you have two license options. You create a derivate work under one,
then the other. Instead of distributing two full copies, you merely add
them together and show both license options.

Is this wrong somehow?

- Per