Re: [eigen] legal question

[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?

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
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>