Re: eLuaOnMizar32Book

[Martin Guy]

Hi! Can we continue this discussion on the elua-on-mizar32 group,
rather than a private discussion?
I'm copying to that list

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Dado Sutter <dados...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25, Carlos Irineu <carlos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> If you want to keep it simple, I'd say go for one of the two licenses at
>>> the very bottom of
>>>
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
>>>
>>> It's just a matter of deciding whether you want / do not want for others
>>> to make changes in the work - "build upond", specified on the left, actually
>>> means "add more stuff".
>
> Just adding a point here:  This differs from the MIT license in adding
> something like a CC NoDerivatives restriction which implies not only
> do you want attribution and license to be intact on redistribution,
> but modifications are forbidden (without approval).

I have no problem with people making derivative works or reusing the
stuff there.
After all, we are doing the same in part!

Of the licenses there, the first two, CC BY and CC BY-SA look most
interesting to me.

The first allows any use provided they point to the original authors;
the second says that derivative works must also be covered by the same
licence and allows us to incorporate material from sources using that
license, such as Wikipedia.

My vote is for CC BY-SA, both because it reflects the GPL in spirit
(except for allowing commercial use also) and because it allows us to
use diagrams and text from wikipedia and others.

M

[Dado Sutter]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:17, Martin Guy <marti...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi! Can we continue this discussion on the elua-on-mizar32 group,
rather than a private discussion?
I'm copying to that list

Sure. I think we should also send to the (this) list some other recent msgs.

 

There is no one in the earth who loves Open Source more than me :) :)  But I don't like the "viral" aspect of the GPL license and I tend to prefer more liberal ones.
As far as I could understand from reading the CC licenses (and I read very little because my limit to law-related stuff is very very limited), they are already more liberal than GPL so it looks fine for me.
 

   M

Best
Dado





 

[Sergio Sorrenti]

I think that we must consider how to keep high the quality of the
book.

So we are sure permits derivatives with SA option is correct for a
book?

I mean the wikipedia style of growing information based on
derivatives,
is a bit different than a book wich have instead fixed editions.

I dont' want other stay in the same condition of us,
without the possibility to use any part of the wikipedia to write a
book
because of the CC-BY-SA license.

So for the book wiki i think is better the CC-BY license,
that will permit the re-use (firstly for us!) of all the part of the
book written
in the wiki.

i feel then to suggest the CC-BY-ND instead of CC-BY-SA for the whole
book,
because i don't think we are making a wiki.

Maybe the SA is perfect for a wiki style only type of information,
that need to remain a wiki, but it will prevent us
to use the wiki material on the book if we use the ND option.

I would like to give more freedom to the elements in the book
specially the ones grown in the wiki, instead for the full book,
i would like that all the authors democratically approve or deny
important changes, extensions or translaions
and the selection of new authors.

Sergio

On 15 Feb, 14:22, Dado Sutter <dadosut...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:17, Martin Guy <martinw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi! Can we continue this discussion on the elua-on-mizar32 group,
> > rather than a private discussion?
> > I'm copying to that list
>
> Sure. I think we should also send to the (this) list some other recent msgs.
>
>
>

> >  On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Dado Sutter <dadosut...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25, Carlos Irineu <carlos.iri...@gmail.com>

[Dado Sutter]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 19:55, Sergio Sorrenti <sergio....@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that we must consider how to keep high the quality of the
book.

So we are sure permits derivatives with SA option is correct for a
book?

I can't tell for sure (too lawish) but this is what it looks like.

 

I mean the wikipedia style of growing information based on
derivatives,
is a bit different than a book wich have instead fixed editions.

I dont' want other stay in the same condition of us,
without the possibility to use any part of the wikipedia to write a
book
because of the CC-BY-SA license.

So for the book wiki i think is better the CC-BY license,
that will permit the re-use (firstly for us!) of all the part of the
book written
in the wiki.

i feel then to suggest the CC-BY-ND instead of CC-BY-SA for the whole
book,
because i don't think we are making a wiki.

Maybe the SA is perfect for a wiki style only type of information,
that need to remain a wiki, but it will prevent us
to use the wiki material on the book if we use the ND option.

I would like to give more freedom to the elements in the book
specially the ones grown in the wiki, instead for the full book,
i would like that all the authors democratically approve or deny
important changes, extensions or translaions
and the selection of new authors.

You seem to be mastering all of this very well now.
I agree with all the ideas and suggestion directions I've seen so far so I´m basically ok with your decisions.

Once we're all ok with these licenses and variantes, I would like to add to the wiki the actual terms.
I will also create (today or tomorrow) a section for the book on the wiki.

Sergio

Best
Dado