[tei-council] Fwd: TEI licensing issues

[Martin Holmes]

 > 1. Glad I've found this essay, only scanned it so far:
 >
 > http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html

This is very interesting -- thanks for finding it.

In our case, is it really possible to separate "software" from 
whatever-the-rest-is? The Guidelines are really a mix of the two.

I'm wondering now about a BSD licence for everything, rather than CC.

Cheers,
Martin

On 11-09-13 05:02 AM, Piotr Bański wrote:
> 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.
>