Re: Website content licensing

[Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>]

On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 12:26 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 14:39 -0600, Paul Cutler wrote:
> > I had a discussion with Bradley Kuhn at last year's Linux Foundation
> > Collaboration Summit - it's not possible to dual license these two
> > copylefts.  The GNOME Documentation team is licensing all new
> > documentation for applications (and on library.gnome.org) under a
> > CC-BY 3.0 license.[1]
> 
> For the record, most of the new documentation is under the
> CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. We are still using a copyleft. Also,
> most of the new developer documentation (such as the demos)
> add this boilerplate exception:
> 
>   As a special exception, the copyright holders give you
>   permission to copy, modify, and distribute the example
>   code contained in this document under the terms of your
>   choosing, without restriction.
> 
> Luis worked with the SFLC lawyers to get us that blurb. Some
> wiki pages have substantial code samples, so this might be
> relevant there.
> 
> I think the real issue with dual-licensing is content reuse.
> If you're always the upstream original content, dual-licensing
> is great for people who want to reuse your content in other
> free content. But if all your content is dual-licensed, it
> really limits where you can reuse content from. For the docs,
> our two most active downstream were moving to CC-BY-SA, and
> we wanted to be able to reuse their material.

gnome.org and gnome3.org are the priorities at this stage, since they
are both going to get a lot of attention in the coming weeks and months.

The GNOME project is the copyright holder. Does this mean it is
straightforward to make the switch in these two instances? Do we require
a formal OK from the foundation?

Allan
-- 
Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/
IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org