[tei-council] ODD headers and licensing terms for customizations provided by TEI-C

[Martin Holmes]

On 10-08-10 07:19 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>
>> It could be dual-licenced, or even triple-licenced, to get around this.
>>
> good point

Although on consideration, it might be a thornier problem than I 
originally thought. Wouldn't we have to get permission from every 
contributor for a change of licensing? That's been a problem for 
open-source projects in the past.

> how strongly do people feel about this? our bottom line is (I assume) that we want the
> Guidelines and their adjuncts completely freely redistributable and re-useable, but
>
>   * we don't want anyone else claiming it is their work
>   * we don't want anyone producing versions of it (ie PDF) without source
>   * we don't want forked changed versions (ie schemas) without source

I think the guidelines (or the source XML for the guidelines) and the 
schemas are two different types of thing. I don't think there's much to 
gain from trying to place any restrictions on the use and distribution 
of schemas. We all have everything to gain and nothing to lose from 
wider adoption of TEI-based schemas, and "forking" is customization, 
which we openly encourage.

> so
>
>    YES: someone sells eBook versions of the Guidelines translated into Greek, and makes the source changes available
>     NO:  someone sells eBook versions of the Greek Guidelines, but does it by translating HTML output

I would say YES to this. I don't care how they generate their text, as 
long as they acknowledge the source.

>     YES: someone makes changes to Lite, calls it MyLite, and distributes it as ODD + PDF + DTD
>      NO: someone produces MyLite.dtd by editing teilite.dtd and distributes it

Again, I would say YES to this. Who cares how they arrive at their 
schema? It's a TEI schema -- we should be glad they're using and 
distributing it.

> I do claim that the GPL is still the right tool, as the TEI Guidelines have the
> characteristic of producing "compiled" forms which can be separately distributed
> and even changed in that form, and we want to preserve the link back to a free
> source form.

My instinct is to be much more permissive; the only thing I'd want to 
encourage through licensing would be attribution (in the Creative 
Commons sense). But then again, if your root element is <TEI>, and your 
namespace is http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0, there's attribution right there.

Cheers,
Martin

> but if  there is an opendata/open document license which covers the situation,
> lets licence under that too.
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
(mholmes at halfbakedsoftware.com)
martin at mholmes.com