[Bf-docboard] License for docs

[Tobias Heinke]

Hello Reiner,

The difference between CC0 and Public Domain:

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Public_domain#Creative_Commons_public_domain_tools

I would declare the CC0 mark as invalid, because of the same reason you 
mentioned:
Everyone would have been ask of her/his consent.

CC-BY-SA is a legitimate successor of the discontinued OCL, that's why - 
IMO - no one has to explicitly agree.

 From now on you have to choose a compatible license:

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/

And you have to indicate, what is your content and what is owned by the 
"Blender Documentation Team":

     https://www.blender.org/manual/about/license.html

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Tobias


Am 24.06.2016 um 18:25 schrieb reiner.prokein:
> Hey everybody,
>
> I am directly affected by this move since i have forked Blender and the
> manual. And i do have some concerns. So i think i need to raise my hand
> here.
>
> I am still not sure under what license i need to put the manual now.
> Since the "original" license of the Blender manual at the time of
> forking was an invalid one. And not even by unasked changing the manual
> license to CC0. But already by your current description. From what i
> know it cannot be both as described at every manual page at the moment.
> It is either Public domain or CC0. Not Public Domain as CC0. Those two
> license types are still contradicting licenses with varying freedom,
> even when they are very close to each other. It's like you say it is GPL
> as Apache license. But i am no lawyer. So i might be wrong here. Maybe
> Public Domain even allows double licensing.
>
> The more important point: isn't it the proper way that you need the
> explicit permission of everybody involved to change open source
> licenses? When it would be so easy to change the licenses by simply
> asking if somebody does not agree, while knowing that some of the
> affected persons will never read it, then i could simply change the GPL
> license to Apache for my Blender fork. Nobody will deny it at my board.
> And this is imho what you are doing here with the manual. Curious
> situation :)
>
> That said, i really look forward how you will solve the license dilemma
> since it will also solve my license dilemma.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Reiner from Bforartists
>
> Am 24.06.2016 um 00:47 schrieb Campbell Barton:
>> Seems there is no disagreement here, we'll go ahead with proposal.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is a discussion about the proper license for the manual.
>>> https://developer.blender.org/D1948
>>>
>>> In short, I suggest:
>>>
>>> - Convert all old "Open Content" to CC-BY-SA in the new manual
>>>
>>> - Add a license page in the manual that tells that we migrated old OCL content to CC-BY-SA. Tell that the original content is still OCL (link to download), and that the new CC-BY-SA is nearly identical and also copyleft. Add foundation at blender.org email address for people to send questions to if they have.
>>>
>>> - For new content advise to use CC-BY-SA, or CC0. At choice of the authors.
>>>
>>> -Ton-
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
>>> Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute
>>> Support us - join blender.cloud or Blender Dev Fund.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-docboard mailing list
>>> Bf-docboard at blender.org
>>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard