[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Social-mediagoblin] calling all people with uber license-fu--we nee
From: |
Brett Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [Social-mediagoblin] calling all people with uber license-fu--we need you! |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:03:49 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:59:55PM -0400, will kahn-greene wrote:
> We're working out the COPYING file and while we think we have the
> language right, it'd help to have multiple people with level 10
> license-fu look it over so we're not doing something epically stupid
> that allows someone to go and sell GNU MediaGoblin for a MEEEELION BARS
> OF CHOCOLATE or something crazy like that.
It could use some stylistic changes to better fit the conventions of
*GPLv3 permissions instead of the old GPLv2-style exceptions, but
that's not a big deal. It also has the nice benefit of making the
text shorter.
I'm worried that some people may misunderstand this part:
> In addition, the HTML templates provided with this work are released
> into the public domain through CC0 and are exempt from derivative
> requirements of the AGPL.
I understand that you're trying to say that the built-in templates
benefit from the same permission as any other, but I think this could
potentially be read to make a broader (and incorrect) statement that
things that are under permissive licenses/in the public domain don't
have to worry about *GPL compliance.
I made changes to the pad along these lines. But you know, if you
*really* want some high-level license-fu, we could get SFLC's help --
which would be totally fair since this is a GNU project. It might
feel like a little overkill, but like you said before, better to get
this stuff squared away now than fret over it later. I could pass it
on to them for review and revision once I hear back on the other
thread -- I need to know what you all want policy-wise in order to
have a productive conversation with them drafting-wise.
--
Brett Smith