[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