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

[MJ Ray <..hidden..>]

"Chris Travers" <..hidden..> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Joshua D. Drake <..hidden..> wrote:
> > 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

My main concern with that is the confusing "anti-TPM" language in
4a/4b which may or may not prevent some uses.  See
http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20061115-00.html
for an illustration of the confusion.

> 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.  [...]

Not necessarily.  For a licence the size of CC ones, that would be a
possible way to prevent certain uses, like the FDL may[*] prevent use
for reference cards.

([*] - not proven. RMS thinks there may be a way around it, others are
 sceptical.)

I'd really much prefer a simpler licence like the BSD-style one
previously suggested.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/