On 03/04/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
On 03/04/2017, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com>
> Could we, please, agree on what the question is; write the question; and
> ask a lawyer, preferably someone involved in the CC license creation in
> the first place? All this interpretation of legalese by coders is bound to
> end badly.
Having re-read the emails from Nico Huber and from David Hendricks in
this thread, and having also re-read the relevant parts of the FAQ, I
now agree with Nico and David about how to interpret CC BY.
Even so, I remain in favour of CC BY-SA 3.0 over CC BY, in order to
achieve license compatibility with Wikipedia, Stack Exchange, OpenZFS,
and various other wikis and technical documentation projects that
might want to include content from the coreboot wiki or vice versa.
Here is the email I sent to Creative Commons. It is
imperfect, but I
hope will be good enough. [...]
Mari from Creative Commons replied to me, offering to check with the
Creative Commons legal team whether CC BY 3.0 gives an adapter
permission to apply a different license to the work as a whole (as I
formerly thought) rather than just to the adapter's contribution (as
David and Nico believe).
Because there now seems to be unanimity within the mailing list on how
to interpret CC BY, getting a lawyer's opinion may be superfluous.
However, I would be happy to accept Mari's offer if you or other core
coreboot contributors would like me to.