On 20/03/2017, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
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.
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
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
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
zero upvotes (maybe because people tend to look elsewhere for flashrom
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
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
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