Re: RUR-PLE lessons french translation
Frederic Muller
> Hello,
>
> I began the french translation of the RUR-PLE lessons. I just finished
> the table of contents and the first lesson and I began the next one.
> I think I could find one or two contributors to finish it but before
> continuing, I would like to ask you two questions:
> * where is the mailing list of the project?
> * what is the license of the lessons? the program is under GPL but it
> seems the lessons are just copyrighted, without further information. My
> humble opinion is that a free documentation license, like CC-by-sa or
> GNU-FDL(without invariant sections) would be better. It could help the
> program to enter an official Debian repository for example.
>
> Yours,
>
> Amine.
Hi and many thanks!
Mailing list is here:
rur-ple...@googlegroups.com
(can't get to groups.google.com, i'm in China and it's blocked)
I'm fine with GNU-FDL. Andre?
Fred
Andre Roberge
On 05/30/2011 11:24 PM, Amine Brikci-Nigassa wrote:
Hello,
I began the french translation of the RUR-PLE lessons. I just finished
the table of contents and the first lesson and I began the next one.
Hi and many thanks!I think I could find one or two contributors to finish it but before
continuing, I would like to ask you two questions:
* where is the mailing list of the project?
* what is the license of the lessons? the program is under GPL but it
seems the lessons are just copyrighted, without further information. My
humble opinion is that a free documentation license, like CC-by-sa or
GNU-FDL(without invariant sections) would be better. It could help the
program to enter an official Debian repository for example.
Yours,
Amine.
Mailing list is here:
rur-ple...@googlegroups.com
(can't get to groups.google.com, i'm in China and it's blocked)
I'm fine with GNU-FDL. Andre?
Fred
nh2
Merci pour avoir commencé ce travail! :-)
Tout le plaisir est pour moi :)
You'll find the files of the TOC and the 1st lesson in attachment. Is it the best way to send you my work? Shall I commit it directly on svn?
Amine.
Frederic Muller
> I'm fine with GNU-FDL. Andre?
>
>
> When I wrote the original documentation, I did not give much thought to
> the question of license ... and I don't think that Creative Commons existed.
>
> I'd prefer CC BY-SA for the documentation. And, if I had to start
> over, I'd probably use MIT for the software...
>
>
I've always read that CC and GPL are incompatible licenses. There are
now with GPLv2/3 and CCv2/3 further things to take into consideration as
well, such as a GPLv2 code with a CC v3 documentation.
Furthermore I also read that GPL and CC code cannot be mixed. In the
case of the lessons they seem very much integrated into the application.
So do we really have a choice?
Furthermore what is the current license of submitted translations not
written by you? Can we say that just having the (c) on the front page
means people have assigned the copyright of their work to you without
any further agreement? What about someone who translated only chapter 5 & 6?
We could also try to contact former translators and ask for their
consent to validate the license change but some probably assumed (like I
did) that the lessons were also GPL'ed. I have tried to contact initial
translators in the past and never got any response, so this path is
obviously to be considered with a "grain of salt".
I would think keep the lessons under GPLv2 cause no problem as it was
the implied license (so yes, I have a slightly different opinion that in
my initial response which was probably too fast). Changing the license
means we need the acceptance of previous contributors and we're not
going to get it.
We could probably still do that and keep a notice on the website within
the license clarification announcement that contributors in disagreement
should contact us as soon as possible for clarifications.
Does this make sense or am I missing something?
So what do you suggest we do? I personally have no strong opinion on the
clarification of the lessons licenses.
Thanks.
Fred
Frederic Muller
Hi Andre,
Any feedback on this? or does you silence means you agree? It'd be nice
to confirm the status, update some files if necessary and close the issue.
Thanks.
Fred
Andre Roberge
On 05/31/2011 11:01 PM, Frederic Muller wrote:
On 05/31/2011 12:13 AM, Andre Roberge wrote:
I'm fine with GNU-FDL. Andre?
When I wrote the original documentation, I did not give much thought to
the question of license ... and I don't think that Creative Commons
existed.
I'd prefer CC BY-SA for the documentation. And, if I had to start
over, I'd probably use MIT for the software...
André
Thanks.
Fred
julien forgeat
> On 05/31/2011 11:01 PM, Frederic Muller wrote:
>>
>> On 05/31/2011 12:13 AM, Andre Roberge wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm fine with GNU-FDL. Andre?
>>>
>>>
>>> When I wrote the original documentation, I did not give much thought to
>>> the question of license ... and I don't think that Creative Commons
>>> existed.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer CC BY-SA for the documentation. And, if I had to start
>>> over, I'd probably use MIT for the software...
>>>
Hi All,
From my point of view, since the translations were committed the same
way as the code was, it is logical that they share the same license
unless explicitly stated otherwise.
So GPL it is.
On the other hand, I don't really understand potential issues with
copyright assignments :S
Julien
Frederic Muller
> And, as the original creator of the lessons (in English), I will be,
> of course, free to reuse as much material from them (in English) as I
> want, under any license I see fit. And part of my goal will be to
> write a French version in parallel... we'll see how that works.
>
>
Well since you're the sole author of the English lessons (or we could
track the contribution from others and act accordingly) you are able to
reuse them for something else under a different license. It seems from
your previous message that you would prefer a MIT license now, I don't
think we have any issue with that. In fact we could ask new contributor
to dual license new contributions to lessons to fit that purpose: what
do you think?
Well all the best for your new adventure and I'll look into what I can
find about the English lesson contributors soon.
Thanks.
Fred
Frederic Muller
> On the other hand, I don't really understand potential issues with
> copyright assignments :S
>
Who ever contribute keep his copyright on his code and therefore is
allowed to reuse it elsewhere, even under a different license.
If we all give our copyright (assign) to entity X, then entity X can
relicense the whole code without asking anyone about this since they own
the code. If we didn't give up our copyright on our contributions then
entity X needs to contact each contributor to ask for authorization to
change license or do something else that the license itself doesn't permit.
I hope I clarified.
So in our case Andr� keeps the copyright of all his contributions which
is 99% of the software, except translations I would say.
To reuse them in a project which is not license with a GPL compatible
license Andr� would have to either retranslate them, or ask each
contributor if they authorise Andr� to use their work under a different
license.
Using CC-BY for the lessons would probably force us to separate both
software and lessons as well since those are 2 incompatible licenses.
So now we should probably try to smooth up Andr� work on his other
project and ask upfront for new contributions.
Fred