[python-advocacy] Advocacy Materials License and Web Frameworks Whitepaper

[Paul Boddie]

On Thursday 14 December 2006 00:59, sdeibel wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Jeff Rush wrote:
> > Researching a bit, I see some good explanation of the various
> > documentation licenses at:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#TOC2FreeDocumentationLice
> >nses
> >
> > I've changed the text on wiki.python.org to link to this page, and also
> > recommend the GNU Free Documentation License.  If anyone has strong
> > opinions on such licenses, please speak up.

First of all, thanks to Jeff for bringing this up on the list. There was a 
contentious debate about documentation licensing on comp.lang.python a few 
weeks ago, although I think that the concerns were well-founded, even though 
the material was actually something with certain redistribution restrictions 
and that the publishers weren't intentionally trying to hide that fact. 
That's why I brought up the question about Creative Commons licensing and all 
its variations.

> What about encouraging the FreeBSD Documentation License?  The
> page above says it's non-copyleft but compatible w/ the GFDL.
> This seems to match the Python license philosophy, which is also
> non-copyleft but (after various painful contortions before my
> involvement w/ the PSF started) compatible w/ the GPL.
>
> Just a thought... I don't know much about documentation licenses.

As Baiju M notes, the GFDL is being revised, and the SFDL may well end up 
being acceptable to everyone who doesn't quite get on with the current GFDL, 
specifically the Debian crowd. It's possible that the current GFDL might be 
acceptable even within Debian, but then one runs into the problem that the 
FSF have with Creative Commons licences: you have to be very clear which 
variation you've employed, and in the case of the GFDL it's probably 
something to do with invariant sections.

If the SFDL process were finished and the licence had broad acceptance then I 
think I'd recommend that. But I believe it is important to maintain certain 
desirable properties of the documentation:

  * That it is redistributable without arbitrary restrictions (eg. a
    non-commercial use clause).
  * That people can conveniently modify and improve it.
  * That we use genuinely free formats.

Copyleft properties are very desirable from an end-user perspective, I 
believe, and might fit in quite well with self-contained advocacy materials. 
And given that numerous books have already been published under various such 
licences, it shouldn't really be too much to ask people to make their sources 
available. Still, I can also imagine that one might want authors to cite 
Python promotional materials and not have to worry about licensing too much.

Paul