[gdal-dev] Fwd: Re: [Live-demo] Re: Liberal licensing of Project Overviews in LiveDVD, do we want this?

[Even Rouault]

Le vendredi 08 juillet 2011 16:35:52, Frank Warmerdam a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Ari Jolma <ari.jolma at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would it be enough to add something to the Doxyfile tag HTML_FOOTER,
> > which states what the documentation is? That way it gets to the bottom
> > of every page of gdal.org. The footer can't be the whole licence,
> > though. MIT licence does not seem to have a definitive web page and the
> > wikipedia page states that "MIT Licence" is ambiguous.
> 
> Ari,
> 
> I would agree having a standard statement in the footer makes sense
> and I would suggest it be url linked to:
> 
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/FAQGeneral#WhatlicensedoesGDALOGRuse
> 
> which might be clarified a bit (and also the LICENSE file) with regard to
> documentation.
> 
> Best regards,

ok, what do you think of the following (doc/gdal_footer.html) :

<hr>
<div align="center">
The documentation on gdal.org is covered under the terms of the <a 
href="http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/FAQGeneral#WhatlicensedoesGDALOGRuse">X/MIT 
license</a> - 
Generated for GDAL by 
<a href="http://www.doxygen.org/index.html"><img src="doxygen.png" 
alt="doxygen" align="middle" border="0"></a> $doxygenversion.
</div>
</body>
</html>

Note that not all pages will display this footer since we have quite a lot of 
static HTML pages (the format list page, the driver specific pages, etc...).

Here are some questions :

1) I'm wondering if we should say "The documentation on" or "The content on" 
(in case someone wonders if some content is really documentation ;-)). Should 
we mention "on gdal.org" that will extend to all pages, or use something like 
"The content of this page is covered under the terms of the X/MIT license" 
that only apply to the current page, and not the whole site ? This has the 
advantage to have better control on which pages it apply since it can only be 
content committed in SVN. But pages such as the static HTML ones would still 
be in a grey area.

2) I'm unsure of the status of "Adam's 2.5 D Simple Features Proposal (OGC 
99-402r2)" : http://home.gdal.org/projects/opengis/twohalfdsf.html that is 
linked from http://gdal.org/ogr/ but actually lives on home.gdal.org/ . Same 
question for http://home.gdal.org/projects/opengis/wkt_prop.html .

3) By the way, what about the content on http://home.gdal.org/ ? If we use 
"The documentation on gdal.org is covered...", would it be considered to be 
included by this sentence ? I think that part of it, like 
http://home.gdal.org/projects/ could be good candidate. But some other content 
( http://home.gdal.org/aj/other.html ;-) ) wasn't primarly meant as being 
redistribuable... To my knowledge, Frank being the only one to have write 
access on home.gdal.org, it should be easy to have a clear status on this.

4) I see that http://mapserver.org/documentation.html doesn't display the 
license, but "© Copyright 2011, Regents of the University of Minnesota.". When 
you click on Copyright, you are directed to a page with the mapserver X/MIT 
license. So should we mention a license or a copyright ? If a copyright, what 
would be the appropriate one ?

5) Once decided on what to do exactly, as it touches licensing, I'm wondering 
if we shouldn't decide this through a motion. 

6) Other question, what about the content on trac.osgeo.org/gdal ? It is more 
difficult to determine its licensing in a global way because anybody can add 
content, not only GDAL committers...

Thoughts ?