[tei-council] Fwd: TEI licensing issues

Laurent Romary laurent.romary at inria.fr
Tue Sep 13 08:08:01 EDT 2011

I have felt that voices expressed so far (or unexpressed like me) would not go that far. And giving up attribution does not bring any flexibility, just removes our claim that we want to be cited. I've understood that the reference to GPL is somehow a mistake, so we should not bother too much. I'm trying to see whether we can converge at this stage. Are you saying you feel strongly indecisive?

Le 13 sept. 2011 à 14:02, Piotr Bański a écrit :

> On 13/09/11 12:13, Laurent Romary wrote:
>> Are we slowly going CC-BY? What do the others think? 
> Or are we going CC0? That would at least allow for compatibility with
> the GPL, at the cost of giving up copyright.
> Or are we going *BSD?
> On the assumption that we want to retain compatibility with GPL, i.e.
> that we do not want to go from being GPL-ed to cutting off half of the
> free/open software world, the points below may be worth considering.
> 1. Glad I've found this essay, only scanned it so far:
> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
> from 4.6, links removed:
> "Avoid using the “Creative Commons” licenses for software. The Creative
> Commons FAQ says, “Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply
> to software. They should not be used for software... [they don’t
> distinguish, as needed,] between object and source code... We strongly
> encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available
> today [instead].” Jay Tuley’s “5 reasons to not choose a CC license for
> code” explains more. The debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
> Licenses recommends that authors who wish to create works compatible
> with Debian’s “Debian Free Software Guidelines” should not use any of
> the licenses in the Creative Commons license suite; licenses with the
> “NonCommercial” or “NoDerivs” license elements are fundamentally
> incompatible with FLOSS, authors who use or are planning to use the
> Attribution 2.0 license should consider a similar Free Software license
> such as a BSD- or MIT-style license..., and Authors who use or are
> planning to use the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license should consider a
> similar Free Software license such as the GNU General Public License
> [GPL]. The Creative Commons has “wrapped” the GPL and LGPL if you want
> to use the Creative Commons search engine."
> 2. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
> Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC BY)
>   This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and
> entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for
> software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and
> with the GNU FDL.
> 3. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
> CC0
>   CC0 is a public domain dedication from Creative Commons. A work
> released under CC0 is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest
> extent permitted by law. If that is not possible for any reason, CC0
> also provides a simple permissive license as a fallback. Both public
> domain works and the simple license provided by CC0 are compatible with
> the GNU GPL.
>   If you want to release your work to the public domain, we recommend
> you use CC0.
> 4. 3-clause BSD and FreeBSD licenses are listed as GPL-compatible as well.
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

Laurent Romary
laurent.romary at inria.fr

More information about the tei-council mailing list