1 |
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:11:28PM -0500, Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote: |
2 |
> I'm for it, but what's keeping the docs team from just bumping the license |
3 |
> version? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> According to the Gentoo Linux Documentation Project's (GLDP) policy [1], I |
6 |
> do not have a say in the matter regarding which license the document I |
7 |
> wrote is published under. This tells me that it's at the will of the GLDP |
8 |
> whether or not to republish the document under a new license, essentially |
9 |
> being just pointing `<license />' to the new text. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Which is all fine by me because the document I did write was done under |
12 |
> the auspices of Gentoo. Meaning I assumed that once GLDP accepted my |
13 |
> contribution, it then owns the documentation I contributed. |
14 |
|
15 |
I don't think that's true. As far as I know (I knew European and Belgian law |
16 |
some time ago, but not using that knowledge clouds it a bit ;-) copyright |
17 |
has not been transferred as long as this isn't done through a contract of |
18 |
any kind. There were talks of asking developers to sign such a document, but |
19 |
afaik this has never been implemented completely (although I know of a few |
20 |
ebuild developers that did). |
21 |
|
22 |
What we do is publish documents as allowed under its license, which is |
23 |
CC-BY-SA 2.5. We are not allowed to change the license, unless the authors |
24 |
of the document agree. |
25 |
|
26 |
We *could* ask for all contributors to inform us if they allow their |
27 |
documents to be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 but that would be a nightmare to |
28 |
manage I think. |
29 |
|
30 |
Supporting <license version="3.0" /> seems like a simple solution to this. |
31 |
|
32 |
Wkr, |
33 |
Sven Vermeulen |