Re: [eigen] legal question

[Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>]

2010/8/3 Aron Ahmadia <aja2111@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> why don't you use a less restrictive license for tutorials, etc...,
> but keep the developer documentation under Eigen source code
> licensing?

Do you mean the doxygen-generated class docs? What is the problem with
CC-BY on them?

Also, isn't it better to have a single license governing all our docs,
so that e.g. an archive of all our docs would be governed by a single
license?

Benoit

>
> A
>
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Here's a answer from Luis Villa of Mozilla, that is relevant to this discussion:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance.mpl-update/msg/12e90f946369ad71
>>
>> Basically:
>> A. we can indeed decide that very short code snippets are not
>> copyrighted, in which case there's no problem at all (and I would then
>> recommend CC-BY i.e. no copyleft on the docs).
>> B. what Mozilla is doing is that both code AND documentation are
>> MPL-licensed. The MPL alllows that i.e. it is a license that applies
>> well to both code and docs.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the docs licensing problem is something we need to fix
>> NOW, we can't wait till the MPL v2 is out and everybody agrees to use
>> it (which might never happen).
>>
>> So I think that our best option for now is A. We do have very short
>> code snippets at many places in the docs, e.g. the typedefs, the
>> template declarations etc. And in a template metaprogramming context
>> like ours, the border between this and "actual code" is just too
>> fuzzy.
>>
>> Is everyone OK to license our documentation as CC-BY, including the
>> snippets it contains? That means that we need to refrain from
>> including significant pieces of Eigen code into the docs (snippets
>> should be trivial), which could have been useful in more advanced,
>> developer documentation. To work around this problem, we should
>> instead link to some online copy of those Eigen source files with
>> anchor to the relevant line number.
>>
>> ok?
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>> 2010/7/25 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On a related note, I just stumbled across this LWN article which
>>> should now be in open access:
>>>
>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/394219/
>>>
>>> It is about GCC developers struggling to be able to include snippets
>>> from their GPLv3-licensed code into their GFDL-licensed documentation.
>>>
>>> It does note, as I just did, that "the real problem is that we as a
>>> community lack a copyleft license that works well for both code and
>>> text."
>>>
>>> I will make sure to bring this to the attention of Mozilla's lawyers
>>> currently revising the MPL...
>>>
>>> Benoit
>>>
>>> 2010/7/25 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> 2010/7/24 Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/7/24 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> > 2010/7/23 Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> >> +1 to CC-attribution
>>>>>> >> -1 to CC-share alike. That makes the license viral
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > aaaaaaaaargh
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Everytime someone uses the word 'viral' to refer to copyleft, the
>>>>>> > aztec gods kill some kittens and Bill Gates has a burst of evil
>>>>>> > laughter.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> like the GPL. Is in
>>>>>> >> really necessary?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I just wanted to emulate the kind of weak copyleft as offered by the
>>>>>> > LGPL and MPL licenses.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It could well be, indeed, that CC-BY-SA is actually closer to GPL: I
>>>>>> > just don't know!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is indeed the case, unfortunately: CC-BY-SA is a stronger
>>>>>> copyleft than what we want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Helmut's use case would actually be allowed since that would be a case
>>>>>> of "Collective Work", I guess, but slightly more intricate cases would
>>>>>> be unclear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, I want to allow people to incorporate short excerpts from
>>>>>> our documentation, possibly in altered form, and have our copyleft
>>>>>> only cover the _part_ of their work that is a direct adaptation of
>>>>>> ours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 2 questions below remain. The lack of simple weak-copyleft
>>>>>> licenses, here too, is a real pity, and might indeed force us to
>>>>>> release our documentation without any copyleft if we really can't find
>>>>>> a suitable copyleft license.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with CC-attribution? I see no reason for copyleft here.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, I've been thinking about this, and CC-BY should be good enough
>>>> for us. The material in our documentation is mostly Eigen-specific,
>>>> so, the more it spreads, the better for Eigen.
>>>>
>>>> Others, what are your opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Keir
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benoit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > So we have 2 questions to answer:
>>>>>> >  - do we indeed need some sort of weak-copyleft for the documentation
>>>>>> > or are we OK to release documentation under a slap-me-in-the-face
>>>>>> > license?
>>>>>> >  - if we do want some sort of weak-copyleft for documentation, what
>>>>>> > license would offer that? Is the SA in CC-BY-SA a too strong form of
>>>>>> > copyleft?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Benoit
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Keir
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Benoit Jacob
>>>>>> >> <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Hi,
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> You do well to ask: indeed, we forgot to pick a free license for our
>>>>>> >>> documentation. We need to do that for a variety of reasons. Debian
>>>>>> >>> among others is distributing our documentation:
>>>>>> >>> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/doc/libeigen2-doc
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> There are 2 mainstream licenses that would make sense for us:
>>>>>> >>>  - GNU FDL
>>>>>> >>>  - CC BY-SA
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> This page is a good read on this topic:
>>>>>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> My feeling is that we're a little better off with the slightly simpler
>>>>>> >>> CC license. It seems simpler because (AFAIK) it just doesn't have
>>>>>> >>> provisions of Cover Text / Invariant Sections. It's also nice that CC
>>>>>> >>> licenses like CC BY-SA make it clear in their very name what they are
>>>>>> >>> doing. No strong opinion though.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Our wiki has defaulted to the FDL 1.2 but since there are few
>>>>>> >>> copyright holders, it should be easy enough to relicense. We must have
>>>>>> >>> compatible licenses for the wiki and docs, to allow moving content
>>>>>> >>> between them.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> OK for CC BY-SA ?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Benoit
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> 2010/7/22 Helmut Jarausch <jarausch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> >>> > Hi,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I'm selling my lecture notes in C++ to my students below cost.
>>>>>> >>> > I'd like to attach Eigen's QuickRefPage (including the URL) as an
>>>>>> >>> > appendix.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Are there any legal problems about this?
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Helmut.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > --
>>>>>> >>> > Helmut Jarausch
>>>>>> >>> > Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
>>>>>> >>> > RWTH - Aachen University
>>>>>> >>> > D 52056 Aachen, Germany
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>