Hi Sam,
welcome to the flashrom mailing list.
Starting almost identical discussions on two different mailing lists is not productive. It _might_ make sense to revisit this after the discussion on the coreboot mailing list has come to a conclusion.
On 18.03.2017 17:50, Sam Kuper wrote:
I have looked at a number of pages on the Flashrom wiki, though not all of them.
None of the pages I have looked at mentioned the license (if any) under which their content is available.
My understanding is that means that much (maybe all) of the documentation in the Flashrom wiki is proprietary (at least, in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions). IANAL, though.
[...] Alternatively, it would be great if the Flashrom wiki contributors could license the documentation in the wiki under one or more free culture licenses: https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses
Ideally, Flashrom would license the content under the GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license-compatible with content from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites.
Why would we want to do that? The GFDL is pretty much the worst licensing choice: it is GPL incompatible, so we would hurt ourselves by using it. CC licensing might make sense, but I don't see the benefit from making the content license-compatible with wikipedia (anything copied from third-party websites to wikipedia is quickly marked as copyvio, and then reverted), and stackexchange questions about flashrom usually receive zero upvotes (maybe because people tend to look elsewhere for flashrom information). Any licensing which inhibits moving code comments to the wiki or vice versa is a really bad idea.
If you agree with the position I have taken above, please do reply to this thread to say so, especially if you have suggestions about how to best achieve the (re-)licensing.
If you disagree with my position, please reply to explain your disagreement.
It looks like you're trying to start a vote with special rules where only those who disagree with you have the burden of explaining their position. I'm afraid that's not how it works.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On 20/03/2017, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
welcome to the flashrom mailing list.
Thanks!
Starting almost identical discussions on two different mailing lists is not productive. It _might_ make sense to revisit this after the discussion on the coreboot mailing list has come to a conclusion.
Fair enough. I was under the impression that the Flashrom and Coreboot communities might have different approaches/policies/etc, so it made sense to discuss the issue with each community separately, rather than assuming that one community's conclusion would apply to the other.
On 18.03.2017 17:50, Sam Kuper wrote:
Ideally, Flashrom would license the content under the GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license-compatible with content from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites.
Why would we want to do that? The GFDL is pretty much the worst licensing choice: it is GPL incompatible, so we would hurt ourselves by using it.
Dual-licensing under the GFDL won't hurt anyone, as long as the other license suits them. But sure, the GFDL probably isn't needed in this case.
CC licensing might make sense, but I don't see the benefit from making the content license-compatible with wikipedia (anything copied from third-party websites to wikipedia is quickly marked as copyvio, and then reverted),
It certainly shouldn't be marked as a copyvio and reverted if its license is compatible with Wikipedia's. Wikipedia has large amounts of material that was copied into it from license-compatible sources, including Flickr and many works whose copyright terms have expired.
and stackexchange questions about flashrom usually receive zero upvotes (maybe because people tend to look elsewhere for flashrom information).
Perhaps. But if the Flashrom wiki content were CC BY-SA 3.0, then it could be excerpted into such answers on SE, which might lead to better quality answers there, and more upvotes.
Any licensing which inhibits moving code comments to the wiki or vice versa is a really bad idea.
I doubt this would be a problem in practice. I think there are standard exceptions for this sort of thing. But I'll try to remember to look into it, because if there *aren't* exceptions for it, then you're right: it could be a problem.
If you agree with the position I have taken above, please do reply to this thread to say so, especially if you have suggestions about how to best achieve the (re-)licensing.
If you disagree with my position, please reply to explain your disagreement.
It looks like you're trying to start a vote with special rules where only those who disagree with you have the burden of explaining their position.
No.
If people agree with my position, there's a good chance their reasons are similar to mine, which means I don't want to burden them by asking them to explain those reasons, nor burden other list members by having people duplicate my arguments.
If, however, people disagree with my position, then I would be grateful if they would explain their reasons so that we on the list can all consider those reasons, and revise our opinions if appropriate.
Thanks,
Sam
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Sam Kuper