Talk:Licenses - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Must remember to get permission from apache to modify their license

2003-07-24T14:57:13Z

Must remember to get permission from apache to modify their license

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 24 July 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Must remember to get permission from apache to modify their license, since it is copyrighted in itself. We wouldn't want to have a pirated license text would we ;) ?
			----
	If you are considering any other license scheme than [[GPL]], which it said you were, [[LGPL]] must be the very next one considered, as it is viral but only to the library or schema level, i.e. does not infect anything that uses that code or library or schema at arm's length as long as it does not modify it. [[GFDL]] is actually more like LGPL because GFDL has [[Invariant Section]]s and other [[Secondary Section]]s to which the normal viral rules don't apply. These are like the calling code, or larger framework, that might rely on LGPL libraries.		If you are considering any other license scheme than [[GPL]], which it said you were, [[LGPL]] must be the very next one considered, as it is viral but only to the library or schema level, i.e. does not infect anything that uses that code or library or schema at arm's length as long as it does not modify it. [[GFDL]] is actually more like LGPL because GFDL has [[Invariant Section]]s and other [[Secondary Section]]s to which the normal viral rules don't apply. These are like the calling code, or larger framework, that might rely on LGPL libraries.

Jukeboksi: moving trollishness to the compost for the you of fauna and fungi

2003-06-24T15:57:21Z

moving trollishness to the compost for the you of fauna and fungi

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 24 June 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	* [[XML]] [[DTD]]s and [[Schema]]s are under [[GPL]]

	~~:This much is true.~~

	~~or [[LGPL]] (more licensing schemes are considered) - again viral so that no [[bad copy problem\|bad copies]] or [[self-interested fork]]s can be created without us stopping them.~~

	~~: What the ******* rubbish troll shit is this? Can you explain 142.177.X.X??[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 14:29 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)~~

	::Only the [[User:MotherOfTrolls]] can explain [[User:142.177.X.X]]. Until then, this one issue can be explained (below). Trolls prefer however the term [[compost]] to "rubbish" or "shit", as their output is wholly [[organic]].

	:::hum. shit is organic too, but it has a very negative connotation. It is untransformed waste, with microbial contamination perhaps. Not safe. A troll would not put that on your floor. Rubbish is somehow implying it is an end product, with no value whatsoever. Plastic bits. This troll would not put that on your floor. A compost is a co-product upon which a garden may flourish. It is a well-balanced medium upon which something can feed and grow. Remember, a [[waste]] may stop being an end-product if you decide so, and be renamed natural resource. This troll is there to spread compost everywhere on your floor

	~~----~~
	If you are considering any other license scheme than [[GPL]], which it said you were, [[LGPL]] must be the very next one considered, as it is viral but only to the library or schema level, i.e. does not infect anything that uses that code or library or schema at arm's length as long as it does not modify it. [[GFDL]] is actually more like LGPL because GFDL has [[Invariant Section]]s and other [[Secondary Section]]s to which the normal viral rules don't apply. These are like the calling code, or larger framework, that might rely on LGPL libraries.		If you are considering any other license scheme than [[GPL]], which it said you were, [[LGPL]] must be the very next one considered, as it is viral but only to the library or schema level, i.e. does not infect anything that uses that code or library or schema at arm's length as long as it does not modify it. [[GFDL]] is actually more like LGPL because GFDL has [[Invariant Section]]s and other [[Secondary Section]]s to which the normal viral rules don't apply. These are like the calling code, or larger framework, that might rely on LGPL libraries.

81.249.66.102: shit, rubbish and compost

2003-06-24T04:09:37Z

shit, rubbish and compost

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 24 June 2003
Line 8:		Line 8:

	::Only the [[User:MotherOfTrolls]] can explain [[User:142.177.X.X]]. Until then, this one issue can be explained (below). Trolls prefer however the term [[compost]] to "rubbish" or "shit", as their output is wholly [[organic]].		::Only the [[User:MotherOfTrolls]] can explain [[User:142.177.X.X]]. Until then, this one issue can be explained (below). Trolls prefer however the term [[compost]] to "rubbish" or "shit", as their output is wholly [[organic]].

			:::hum. shit is organic too, but it has a very negative connotation. It is untransformed waste, with microbial contamination perhaps. Not safe. A troll would not put that on your floor. Rubbish is somehow implying it is an end product, with no value whatsoever. Plastic bits. This troll would not put that on your floor. A compost is a co-product upon which a garden may flourish. It is a well-balanced medium upon which something can feed and grow. Remember, a [[waste]] may stop being an end-product if you decide so, and be renamed natural resource. This troll is there to spread compost everywhere on your floor

	----		----

142.177.108.143: legalese - first draft - but complete and deals with some problems Wikipedia has with GFDL and "outing"

2003-06-19T22:23:22Z

legalese - first draft - but complete and deals with some problems Wikipedia has with GFDL and "outing"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 19 June 2003
Line 24:		Line 24:

	One can change the license of a project later on (if it's legally possible for the license in question), but the source code released before the change will stay under the previous license.		One can change the license of a project later on (if it's legally possible for the license in question), but the source code released before the change will stay under the previous license.

			:Of course, but then there's a risk of competing with improvements to that source code that stay in the old license regime, maybe bad copy problems. There is lots of rightful social pressure against such changes as it splits community. Also "if it's legally possible for the license in question" is critical, as it constrains one to using licenses that actually allow such changes. Even so many are limited, like, GPL allows for successor versions of the GPL but doesn't even make it clear how to shift GPL material to LGPL.

			:For all these reasons we may be better off just changing the "Please note that..." to somehing like:

			-----
			Please note that all contributions to the Consumerium Wiki are considered to be donated without obligation to the [[Consumerim Governance Organization]] with all rights and releases. These will be republished immediately in accord with best practices of materials under the GNU Free Documentation License, at the same URL as the material you chose to edit, within limits of our editorial and governance judgement. You are an equal participant in such judgement except for core questions which require specific legal and logistical and linguistic skill, where some expert judgement may guide the CGO in determining how best to factor and license contributions. In that case you have input into which experts to trust, again via the CGO. Regarding your specific contribution at this moment:

			If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will of the CGO, then don't submit it here. Should the project disband or fail to reach agreement on [[licenses]], all material will be released under [[GFDL]] immediately. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself or copied it from a public domain or otherwise free resource, and that no copyright claim whatsoever, other than your own, is required to republish this material here or done it without obligation to the CGO, or for release under the GFDL with no secondary or invariant sections, no front-cover or back-cover text, and without the normal obligations to credit authorship in an obvious and visible way. If you are contributing anonymously or pseudonymously, then in return for respect for your anonymity, you accept that we have no obligation to credit you at all. '''DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION REGISTERED WITH THE CGO'''.

Jukeboksi: possible copyright infringement by me removed... explaining it in my own words

2003-06-19T20:42:09Z

possible copyright infringement by me removed... explaining it in my own words

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 19 June 2003
Line 22:		Line 22:
	It's not sourceforge nerds you need here, it's people from NGOs and charities and churches and institutes that study [[fair trade]], [[safe trade]], [[ethical investing]] and [[moral purchasing]] (especially). Nerds want certainty, but those other groups want peace and justice. Only you can decide who to satisfy. - trolls, eternal.		It's not sourceforge nerds you need here, it's people from NGOs and charities and churches and institutes that study [[fair trade]], [[safe trade]], [[ethical investing]] and [[moral purchasing]] (especially). Nerds want certainty, but those other groups want peace and justice. Only you can decide who to satisfy. - trolls, eternal.
	----		----
	~~Ok... this is brutal copy-paste from work copyrighted by OSDN, but I guess I can count on this being "fair use"~~

	~~'''Changing licenses (from terms~~ of ~~use @ sf.net)''~~		One can change the license of a project later on (if it's legally possible for the license in question), but the source code released before the change will stay under the previous license.

	~~--snip--~~

	~~You may select~~ a ~~different Open Source license for your~~ project ~~at a~~ later ~~date, so long as you have~~ the ~~legal capability to do so, your file release clearly relates this change~~, ~~and your Trove categorization is updated appropriately. It should be noted that license changes are not retroactive (i.e. you may not change~~ the ~~licensing terms of materials you have already~~ released under ~~one Open Source~~ license).

	~~--snip--~~

Jukeboksi: format

2003-06-19T20:37:09Z

format

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 19 June 2003
Line 25:		Line 25:

	'''Changing licenses (from terms of use @ sf.net)''		'''Changing licenses (from terms of use @ sf.net)''

	--snip--		--snip--

	You may select a different Open Source license for your project at a later date, so long as you have the legal capability to do so, your file release clearly relates this change, and your Trove categorization is updated appropriately. It should be noted that license changes are not retroactive (i.e. you may not change the licensing terms of materials you have already released under one Open Source license).		You may select a different Open Source license for your project at a later date, so long as you have the legal capability to do so, your file release clearly relates this change, and your Trove categorization is updated appropriately. It should be noted that license changes are not retroactive (i.e. you may not change the licensing terms of materials you have already released under one Open Source license).

	--snip--		--snip--

Jukeboksi: OSDN (Sourceforge) on changing licenses in mid-flight

2003-06-19T20:36:47Z

OSDN (Sourceforge) on changing licenses in mid-flight

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:36, 19 June 2003
Line 21:		Line 21:

	It's not sourceforge nerds you need here, it's people from NGOs and charities and churches and institutes that study [[fair trade]], [[safe trade]], [[ethical investing]] and [[moral purchasing]] (especially). Nerds want certainty, but those other groups want peace and justice. Only you can decide who to satisfy. - trolls, eternal.		It's not sourceforge nerds you need here, it's people from NGOs and charities and churches and institutes that study [[fair trade]], [[safe trade]], [[ethical investing]] and [[moral purchasing]] (especially). Nerds want certainty, but those other groups want peace and justice. Only you can decide who to satisfy. - trolls, eternal.
			----
			Ok... this is brutal copy-paste from work copyrighted by OSDN, but I guess I can count on this being "fair use"

			'''Changing licenses (from terms of use @ sf.net)''
			--snip--
			You may select a different Open Source license for your project at a later date, so long as you have the legal capability to do so, your file release clearly relates this change, and your Trove categorization is updated appropriately. It should be noted that license changes are not retroactive (i.e. you may not change the licensing terms of materials you have already released under one Open Source license).
			--snip--

142.177.12.33: more organic compost for the funny garden

2003-06-19T19:48:44Z

more organic compost for the funny garden

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 19 June 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:

	* [[XML]] [[DTD]]s and [[Schema]]s are under [[GPL]]		* [[XML]] [[DTD]]s and [[Schema]]s are under [[GPL]]

Line 7:		Line 6:

	: What the ******* rubbish troll shit is this? Can you explain 142.177.X.X??[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 14:29 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)		: What the ******* rubbish troll shit is this? Can you explain 142.177.X.X??[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 14:29 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

			::Only the [[User:MotherOfTrolls]] can explain [[User:142.177.X.X]]. Until then, this one issue can be explained (below). Trolls prefer however the term [[compost]] to "rubbish" or "shit", as their output is wholly [[organic]].

			----
			If you are considering any other license scheme than [[GPL]], which it said you were, [[LGPL]] must be the very next one considered, as it is viral but only to the library or schema level, i.e. does not infect anything that uses that code or library or schema at arm's length as long as it does not modify it. [[GFDL]] is actually more like LGPL because GFDL has [[Invariant Section]]s and other [[Secondary Section]]s to which the normal viral rules don't apply. These are like the calling code, or larger framework, that might rely on LGPL libraries.

			As to the [[bad copy problem]] and [[self-interested fork]], any [[viral license]] does something to stop them, but GPL is focused only on self-interested forks, and as a result bad copies proliferate by people with altriusm as a motive (even worse! 800 versions of Linux - bleagh - all with no support). And commercial ripoffs of ideas that first appeared in GPL are now happening but thankfully not succeeding. LGPL tries to cut back on the ideology and encourage standardization, private and public and consortium use of the same tools, which is a better way to address bad-copy but of course now each bit of code using it can be a self-interested version that does little but exploit the LGPL resource. This is [[open source]] and many think it's the worst of both worlds. Consortia like [[W3]] or [[Java]] or [[X/Open]] or [[Apache]] or [[BSD]] or [[MySQL]] (at least originally when it had an "anyone but Microsoft" license) are better but harder-to-enforce attempts at providing incentives to cooperate and reasons not to create bad copies (public embarassment, as when Sun sued Microsoft) or self-interested forks (fear of lawsuits by the consortium) or either. In Microsoft's case this usually bad copies AND self-interested forks (the secret of their success, get people hooked on the bugs and making money addressing the limits).

			You can't just pick a license for a part of a project at random. It ends up creating your success or failure. So this needs a LOT more discussion and it would be a serious mistake to make license choices just to get listed at sourceforge.net faster. There is talk of a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]] and even a [[Green Patent License]] in some circles. Any one could use the material but if they use it in ways that damage health or the environment they owe money "back to the planet, plants, animals and humans" they damage with this technology. We should not do anything that would make the people doing that, or even just talking about it, avoid Consumerium, calling it a "grey project" (GNU = grey in many minds, sees technology as a universal good, never a hazard, more roads more cars more computers more wires more robots etc.).

			You need at least some statement of [[values]] or [[principles]] or an [[ethic]] of [[Consumerium:Itself]] before you go ahead with license choices, my untroll friend. For example, if your statement is [[troll-friendly]], i.e. welcoming the anonymous, avoiding social reasons for cutting off instructional exchange, then you can expect more help than if you were asking for certifications of identity and fingerprints. That said, some things are better not said or asked.

			Only you can decide what they are. But that is a policy decision, and if you make license decisions, that will set every contributor's right to say or ask what is said about, or done with, their contributions. The license decision should actually be last, for anything other than what is already necessarily a part of research (like XML schemas). You might want to add a note that the license under which material is available from consumerium may change and that one is giving up all rights except to participate in [[Consumerium governance]] however that works. That would stall off the questions and make it possble to change licenses based on constraints identified specific to [[Consumerium:Itself]].

			It's not sourceforge nerds you need here, it's people from NGOs and charities and churches and institutes that study [[fair trade]], [[safe trade]], [[ethical investing]] and [[moral purchasing]] (especially). Nerds want certainty, but those other groups want peace and justice. Only you can decide who to satisfy. - trolls, eternal.

Jukeboksi: moved some nonsense here

2003-06-19T14:29:34Z

moved some nonsense here

New page

* [[XML]] [[DTD]]s and [[Schema]]s are under [[GPL]]

:This much is true.

or [[LGPL]] (more licensing schemes are considered) - again viral so that no [[bad copy problem|bad copies]] or [[self-interested fork]]s can be created without us stopping them.

: What the ******* rubbish troll shit is this? Can you explain 142.177.X.X??[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:29 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)