Re: [flashrom] Flashrom wiki: what license is the content under?

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

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

Flashrom wiki: what license is the content under?

[Sam Kuper]

On 20/03/2017, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)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