[Live-demo] Re: LiveDVD Copyright Ambiguity - speak up if you have issues

Alex Mandel tech_dev at wildintellect.com
Fri Jun 17 16:15:06 PDT 2011

I disagree about the double license, Code copyright licenses are not
generally thought to be appropriate for Documentation (and vice versa).
Hence FSF even made the GNU Free Document License

I'm fairly sure that CC-BY-SA docs can be included in any FOSS licensed
app as it only applies to the docs and not the code. Maybe someone wants
to poke around if there are known issues with CC licenses and say BSD,
MIT or Apache Licenses?

I also want to limit the amount of work and confusion for contributors
and users.


On 06/17/2011 04:02 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
> Definitely don't make it non-commercial. This is a vague term that is hard
> to define.
> I would suggest that authors give a double license: one which is common for
> the whole live dvd, and a second one which is the same as the license of the
> software program.
> If at any point somebody wants to combine part of the documentation with the
> program (eg write a man file) he/she can do it much more easily if the
> license is the same.
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>wrote:
>> I wonder if we should also specify share alike. So it would be
>> Attribution Share-Alike.
>> If I recall the controversy was over if it should be Non-commercial and
>> I can see how we need to leave that off in order to encourage
>> contributions from companies to OSGeo live.
>> Any objections to making it Attribution Share-Alike?
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>> On 06/17/2011 03:14 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> OSGeo-Live authors,
>>> It has been picked up that we have not selected a specific CC license.
>>> As such, I'm about to update all OSGeo-Live docs to be CC by
>>> Attribution, as per below.
>>> If you have any objections, please speak up before Monday 20 June.
>>> On 15/06/11 08:37, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>> Which license?
>>>> =========
>>>> Firstly, in the RST source, the majority of our docs are licensed as
>>>> "Creative Commons". As Simon points out, we need to be more specific.
>>>> I suggest that we change our template to use the least restrictive of
>>>> the Creative Commons licenses, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
>>>> Unported License <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/>, and
>>>> ask all authors to confirm that we can change their docs to this
>> version.
>>>> What reference?
>>>> ===========
>>>> I suggest that we add the following to our disclaimer.html page:
>>>> The OSGeo-Live documentation  is licensed under a Creative Commons
>>>> Attribution 3.0 Unported License
>>>> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/> by the respective
>>>> OSGeo-Live authors <http://live.osgeo.org/en/sponsors.html#contributors
>>> .
>>>> The software and data included with OSGeo-Live are licenced under
>>>> their respective Open Source or other Open license.
>>>> Derivative works?
>>>> ===========
>>>> I suggest we recommend the following text be included in derivative
>>>> works:
>>>> "If incorporating content from the OSGeo-Live project, please
>>>> attribute using text similar to:
>>>> [This document] incorporates OSGeo-Live documentation, which is owned
>>>> by the respective OSGeo-Live authors."
>> _______________________________________________
>> Live-demo mailing list
>> Live-demo at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc

More information about the Osgeolive mailing list