[tei-council] Fwd: [tei-board] licensing issues

[Lou Burnard]

On 28/09/11 17:43, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 28 Sep 2011, at 17:37, Lou Burnard wrote:
>
>> Thank you yes. The point of my question was precisely to ask what we
>> hope to achieve by licencing our material. If we're not trying to get
>> money out of it, and we don't require acknowledgment, and we don't care
>> what people do with it, then why are we putting a licence on it at all?
>
>
> My view is that we'd _like_ acknowledgement, out of academic good practice and courtesy,
> and we'd likely hold people up to peer-group shame if they took
> TEI and didn't mention it. So the BSD phrasing gives us a structure in which to express
> that peer-group shaming, which is far as I can imagine us going.
>

Well, we'd all _like_ things to be nice and everyone to Do the Decent 
Thing of course. But if you are deciding on a licencing policy I think 
it should be quite explicit about what you consider to be right, not 
just left unsaid because chaps don't talk about that sort of thing. How 
or whether you enforce it is quite another issue.

> We _could_  just put it all in the public domain (CC0). Fine by me.

I could live with that, but then I don't have a career to worry about.

>
> By the way, don't forget that we can reverse this decision for any future release.
> We'd not binding our successors to keep using it for P6.
> --

Certainly that's true of the new bits of the hypothetical P6, but I 
don't understand how the parts it inherits from P5 can be licenced more 
restrictively.