[tei-council] Licensing - ballot

[Piotr Bański]

The formulation still lacks, and of course, applying e.g. a software
license to documentation, or vice versa, would be a bad move. I
understand that Laurent wanted to handle the grey area in some special
way: some say schemas are software, some say they are
documents/documentation (and the weirdness of the choice is caused by
the lack of appropriate legal formulations and precedents, it seems).
So, if I understand Laurent correctly, he wanted to say: if you use e.g.
schemas "as software" and want to redistribute them in software
environment, choose BSD. If you use them as documentation and distribute
them bundled with other pieces of documentation, choose a documentation
license. And yes, the licensee would have a choice here. Note that I
don't know if this is OK with all the lawyers in the world, I'm just
saying that it looks like a sensible attempt to move one step forward in
this. I think a lawyer or two should see this before it's finalized.

Let me repeat from a previous e-mail: combining licenses is bad --
instead offer a choice to the licensee. Once they make it, they will
have to redistribute under only the license that they have chosen, as
far as I understand this process. This way it's never that both are
applicable at once, because indeed, that would be nonsensical.

So, to wrap up: like Lou said, clear cases should go into clear
categories, and like Laurent suggested (as I understand him) the grey
area (still not fully defined, mind you) should give the licensee a
choice, pending some legal or de facto developments.

Best,

  P.

On 01/10/11 10:29, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Not sure if I have a vote or not, but I would just like to say that it 
> is not up to the licensees to decide which licence applies, surely. It 
> is up to the TEI to say : "text etc" is licenced under CCBY, and 
> "software etc" is under BSD2 (minus the stupid clause). And we have an 
> outstanding task to decide which bits go into which category.
> 
> Or is the vote to say that both are applicable to everything? That seems 
> nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
>   kOn 01/10/11 08:46, Laurent Romary wrote:
>> My count says: LR, PB, SR, SAY, EP, BB
>> This is just one enough, but would like to have a hint from the others that they would not get completely depressed if we go in this direction. As we know, a majority may not reflect a shared opinion...
>>
>>
>> Début du message réexpédié :
>>
>>> De : Brett Barney<bbarney2 at unlnotes.unl.edu>
>>> Date : 30 septembre 2011 21:51:14 HAEC
>>> À : TEI Council<tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>>> Cc : tei-council-bounces at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> Objet : Rép : [tei-council] Fwd: kibitzing
>>>
>>>> On 30/09/2011 09:33, "Stuart A. Yeates"<syeates at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Laurent Romary
>>> <laurent.romary at inria.fr>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Council. I would definitely like to follow Gabriel on this and ask the
>>>>>> council to vote on the following statement (I know someone will find
>>>>>> optimal en words afterwards):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The council recommends adopting a double license combining BSD-2 and
>>>>>> CC-BY whereby people who want to re-use text or data-like TEI-content
>>>>>> should use CC-BY, and those who want to use the
>>>>>> code and software-like content should use BSD-2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 LR
>>>>> +1 SAY
>>>> +1
>>> +1 BB
>>>
>>>
>>> Brett

-------------- 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/20111001/49b1179d/attachment.bin