[Live-demo] Liberal licensing of Project Overviews in LiveDVD, do we want this?

[Alex Mandel]

On 06/29/2011 05:30 PM, Simon Cropper wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
> Cameron has just posted the new licensing details for the LiveDVD.
> 
> I presume if you actually opened my post that you may be concerned with
> how Project Overviews may be used.
> 
> If you have any opinions on this matter PLEASE speak up -- don't just
> sit in the background as *Cameron will take the lack of any responses as
> an implicit YES to his proposal*.
> 
> Personally I have a problem with Project Overviews, or any technical
> documentation for that matter, being locked up in
> Commercial-in-Confidence derivatives. I think Project Overviews, which
> can be legitimately be included 'as is' in a proposal or design
> document, shouldn't need to be reworked. To me the reworked document,
> which needs to include your name as original author, implies some sort
> of collaboration has occurred when none has occurred. Yes, reworked
> documents do look better but contribute nothing the the broader
> CC/FOSS/OSGeo community.
> 
> But this is my opinion. If you have one - for or against - *especially
> those people that have authored the Project Overviews*, SPEAK UP!
> 

The thing I haven't been able to quite figure out is if CC-BY-SA behaves
more like LGPL or GPL. Meaning if you just include a verbatim copy of a
Quickstart in a bigger document but don't actually modify it, is that
considered a derivative work? I think we need someone from CC to clarify
derivative works vs collections vs just direct quotation.


Thanks,
Alex