Re: Proposal: License Change for Manual And Standardization of Licenses for Official Docs

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On 10/24/07, Joshua D. Drake <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:51:07 +0100
> MJ Ray <..hidden..> wrote:
>
>
> > > CC would have the advantage of being the most popular non-code set
> > > of licenses, and thus help us on license compatibility more than
> > > any other.
> >
> > How?  Many CC licences are mutually incompatible and the most popular
> > CC licences are for non-free-software, including anti-commercial or
> > anti-modification terms.  Don't most people think CC means "free for
> > non-commercial use" like BBC TV's Click show announced
> > week-before-last?
> >
> > Please use something simpler, like BSD-style.
>
> I think this license seems reasonable:
>
> Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode

I guess the major concern I have here is:
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and
You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for,
this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You
distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally
perform. "

Wouldn't it be better to include the license in the work.

Also, I am not clear on the comparative benefits of asking people who
want to provide publication of portions of the documentation to
quarantine them in a separate part so that they can fall under
collective rather than derivative works.

I.e. if I include the LedgerSMB manual in a book I write as a separate
work, I don't cede my rights to restrict copying of the rest of my
work just because I include it.  Or am I missing something?

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers