Licensing trick with SeaMonkey help documentation possible?
Ricardo Palomares Martínez
SeaMonkey Council has a list of pending changes in SM help for SM 2.0:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=423281&hide_resolved=1
I'm wondering if I could do this?
- write documentation for those SM bugs,
- adapt it for TB, and post the translated version to our Spanish
community site TB-docs section, which uses CC-3.0-by-sa
Would it valid from the licensing POV? I guess that, as the original
author, I'm free to contribute to SM with whatever license Mozilla
wants for help (GPl/LGPL/MPL, since it goes to the repository?) and
"relicense" my own work so it can be posted in the community site.
But, as I say, I'm just guessing... :-?
I expect to have different answers depending if we're talking of
entirely new files for SM help (which I understand not to be
derivative works at all), new sections on existing SM help files
(which I'm not so sure), or changes on existing content of SM help
files (which I understand are derivative works).
In the end, I intend to reuse my effort to benefit as many Mozilla
users as possible, no more, no less, so if there is any alternative
approach (like start by writing the new content in the community site
and then adapting it to SM help), I'd be happy to know about it.
TIA
Frank Hecker
> Hi,
>
> SeaMonkey Council has a list of pending changes in SM help for SM 2.0:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=423281&hide_resolved=1
>
> I'm wondering if I could do this?
> - write documentation for those SM bugs,
> - adapt it for TB, and post the translated version to our Spanish
> community site TB-docs section, which uses CC-3.0-by-sa
>
> Would it valid from the licensing POV? I guess that, as the original
> author, I'm free to contribute to SM with whatever license Mozilla
> wants for help (GPl/LGPL/MPL, since it goes to the repository?) and
> "relicense" my own work so it can be posted in the community site.
> But, as I say, I'm just guessing... :-?
[Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.]
Speaking personally, whatever original documentation you write yourself
is your own; you hold the copyright, and you can license it however you
please. In particular, you're free to license it under CC-BY-SA in one
context and the Mozilla MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license on the other.
> I expect to have different answers depending if we're talking of
> entirely new files for SM help (which I understand not to be
> derivative works at all), new sections on existing SM help files
> (which I'm not so sure), or changes on existing content of SM help
> files (which I understand are derivative works).
If you're modifying existing content in files that are tri-licensed then
your resulting files are (as you indicated) derivative works and should
be licensed under the same license. If you're creating new sections
within an existing help file then from the point of view of the MPL your
contributions would be Modifications and the resulting file should be
licensed under the MPL; ditto for the GPL and LGPL, so if the file was
tri-licensed originally your revised version should be tri-licensed as
well. However you're also free to take your new sections (assuming
they're not based on pre-existing material) and license them under
CC-BY-SA as well, in other contexts. (For example, if you post them to
the MDC site or whatever.)
> In the end, I intend to reuse my effort to benefit as many Mozilla
> users as possible, no more, no less, so if there is any alternative
> approach (like start by writing the new content in the community site
> and then adapting it to SM help), I'd be happy to know about it.
It doesn't really matter where you put the new content originally, all
that matters is that it be original content.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
hec...@mozillafoundation.org
Axel Hecht
I'd like to add that we consider translations to be derivative work in
general.
Axel
Ricardo Palomares Martínez
> [Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.]
>
> Speaking personally, whatever original documentation you write yourself
> is your own; you hold the copyright, and you can license it however you
> please. In particular, you're free to license it under CC-BY-SA in one
> context and the Mozilla MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license on the other.
> If you're modifying existing content in files that are tri-licensed then
> your resulting files are (as you indicated) derivative works and should
> be licensed under the same license. If you're creating new sections
> within an existing help file then from the point of view of the MPL your
> contributions would be Modifications and the resulting file should be
> licensed under the MPL; ditto for the GPL and LGPL, so if the file was
> tri-licensed originally your revised version should be tri-licensed as
> well. However you're also free to take your new sections (assuming
> they're not based on pre-existing material) and license them under
> CC-BY-SA as well, in other contexts. (For example, if you post them to
> the MDC site or whatever.)
> It doesn't really matter where you put the new content originally, all
> that matters is that it be original content.
Thank you, it perfectly matches my thoughts (new files, I can do
whatever with them; new content on existing files, I can do whatever
with the new content only; modifications on existing files, are
derivative works and thus subject to MPL/GPL/LGPL). I guess the only
issue now is that you and me are not lawyers and we both could still
be wrong. :-)
Thanks again.
Ricardo Palomares Martínez
> I'd like to add that we consider translations to be derivative work in
> general.
Yes, of course. :-) The translated versions I speak of are always just
of the new content created by me, never of existing content (including
as such any content I could have modified to reflect changes in
features or UI). Basically, I can use the translations under exactly
the same conditions as the original content.
Just waiting for a confirmation by an authoritative voice. Not that I
intend to do nasty things, nor I fear Mozilla is willing to sue me,
:-) but I already know by now that we all need to be on the safe side
so nobody can use my actions as an example of Mozilla
allowing/promoting something not covered by licenses.
Ricardo.
Eitan Adler
>
> SeaMonkey Council has a list of pending changes in SM help for SM 2.0:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=423281&hide_resolved=1
>
> I'm wondering if I could do this?
> - write documentation for those SM bugs,
> - adapt it for TB, and post the translated version to our Spanish
> community site TB-docs section, which uses CC-3.0-by-sa
>
> Would it valid from the licensing POV? I guess that, as the original
> author, I'm free to contribute to SM with whatever license Mozilla
> wants for help (GPl/LGPL/MPL, since it goes to the repository?) and
> "relicense" my own work so it can be posted in the community site.
> But, as I say, I'm just guessing... :-?
[speaking as a non-lawyer]
All you are really doing is quad-licensing GPl/LGPL/MPL/CC. Any groups
could use the content under whichever of these terms they want.