Documentation Licensing changes

[Enrico Zini]

Hello,

Mako tried to raise this a week ago, but there hasn't been much
followup, so I'll try again :)

Previous to the conf, the idea with documentation licensing was to use
GFDL.  At the conf, however, there's been a bit more thinking on it, and
it turned out that CC-by-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)
would be a better idea:

 - it's translated and ported to various legal systems around the world
 - it's simple to understand
 - it's actively supported by a big foundation

Like GFDL, and like all documentation-specific licenses at the moment,
CC-by-SA can't go in Debian.  However, CC-by-SA has many less
problematic sections and the cc folks have expressed interest in working
to get them fixed, so it probably has more chances of being accepted in
Debian in the future.

The proposal is now to dual-license under CC-by-SA and under GFDL, so
that we can do CC-by-SA and still be able to include what we make in
GFDLd works.

This sounds more like a cosmetic change rather than a fundamental one,
and I personally see no reason not to do it.  Unless someone has issues
to raise before, say, Christmas, I'd say that after Christmas we can
move on finally writing disclaimers for the wiki edit page and an
explanation page to put on the main website.


Ciao,

Enrico

--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20041222/e275db92/attachment.pgp>