[tei-council] Fwd: TEI licensing issues

[Piotr Bański]

Hi Martin,

I'm a bit afraid that giving up copyright (that's what public domain
means) would invite abuse, and I'm not convinced that the TEI is widely
known everywhere. For example, looking at mine and related work on
applying TEI to linguistic markup (and yes, I am aware of the roots and
the history of the TEI), I recall the results of the survey that Damir
Ćavar did before his panel presentation at the last TEI-MM, where he
quoted language-technology people going "TEI? Does that still exist?!".
Andreas Witt has recently experienced this too. I wish that this is
going to change, but so far, the picture of the TEI being a giant beyond
abuse is well, just a picture :-)

And one more issue, pretty grim, is that relicensing appears to require
agreement of the contributors, who contributed under a different
license. XEmacs practically died from that.

Thirdly, GNU GPL is a good and widely supported license, it would be a
pity to give it up.

Best,

  P.

On 12/09/11 19:02, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I've added links to everything specific, so not including e.g. "LGPL" 
> without a version number.
> 
> I'm honestly wondering why we should be looking at such a broad range of 
> licences. Could we consider the possibility of putting absolutely 
> everything in the public domain (CC0)? Do we have anything to lose, 
> other than attribution? And it seems to me that anyone using TEI stuff 
> for any project would most likely be doing so _because_ it's a 
> widely-known and broadly-supported standard, so they'd gain nothing from 
> avoiding attribution.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> On 11-09-12 09:18 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>> On 11/09/11 09:21, Laurent Romary wrote:
>>> Before we move to other issues here. Could someone with a good
>>> knowledge in the domain of licenses summarizes the options,
>>> considering the various type of objects we have to deal with
>>> (ODD, schemas, doc, xslt...). We could have these put together
>>> in the wiki, before we make a comprehensive proposal to the
>>> board. Laurent
>>
>>
>> I don't think I qualify as such, but since no one else has done
>> so, I have done a first-draft at a table of objects the TEI-C
>> produces, Current licences, and proposed Licences.
>>
>> http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Council-licensing
>>
>> Warning: I may have got stuff entirely wrong, please feel free to
>> correct, bonus points for adding in links to the licenses themselves.
>>
>> Feel free to continue debate here and/or on discussion tab on the
>> wiki.
>>
>> Currently the stylesheets take the content of<availability>  for
>> the output schemas when generated by Roma. I don't think that we
>> should license the roma-output schemas differently than the ODDs
>> themselves (and not sure how we would store different licences
>> for different outputs in availability).
>>
>> My desire would be to consistently license across the board as
>> much as possible, with the most open licences possible.
>> Multi-licensing is fine if it makes it easier for people (like
>> George) to use and doesn't confuse users.
>>
>> -James
>>
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4054 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/pipermail/tei-council/attachments/20110912/9e8ce44d/attachment.bin