As discussed in gentoo-core: The devmanual is currently distributed under the terms of the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0" (CC-BY-SA-2.0) license. In order to facilitate moving of documentation from the wiki, I suggest relicensing under "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" (CC-BY-SA-3.0), i.e. the same license as the wiki. AIUI, CC-BY-SA-2.0 allows for such relicensing in section 2.b.: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution- ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). An overview about the changes from 2.0 to 3.0 can be found here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Version_3
Created attachment 410288 [details, diff] Patch changing license to CC-BY-SA-3.0
+1.
Is there a good reason why not 4.0? I’m just wondering, that’s all.
(In reply to Matija "hook" Šuklje from comment #3) > Is there a good reason why not 4.0? Lazyness. :) Moving one project is less work than moving everything. Seriously, I have no objections against the terms of 4.0. However, the primary goal is to have a unique version for all documentation, and most of it (the wiki, especially) is under 3.0. Being somewhat conservative on the license version also has some advantages when copying documentation to other projects.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #4) > Seriously, I have no objections against the terms of 4.0. However, the > primary goal is to have a unique version for all documentation, and most of > it (the wiki, especially) is under 3.0. Being somewhat conservative on the > license version also has some advantages when copying documentation to other > projects. OK, that’s a good reason. I’m just wondering because CC 4.0 is the first version written in mind to be jurisdiction-agnostic, instead of relying on several national ports. Also, relicensing from any CC from 2.0 onwards to any later version of CC is very straightforward, since they already include a “or later” clause. So even if docs are licensed under 2.0, I can still license my work based on it as CC 3.0 or even 4.0. To quote CC FAQ: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_should_I_know_about_differences_between_the_international_licenses_and_the_ported_licenses.3F ------ What are the international (“unported”) Creative Commons licenses, and why does CC offer “ported” licenses? One of CC’s goals is ensuring that all of its legal tools work globally, so that anyone anywhere in the world can share their work on globally standard terms. To this end, CC offers a core suite of six international copyright licenses (formerly called the "unported") that are drafted based largely on various international treaties governing copyright, taking into account as many jurisdiction-specific legal issues as possible. The latest version (4.0) has been drafted with particular attention to the needs of international enforceability. For version 3.0 and earlier, Creative Commons has also offered ported versions of its six core licenses for many jurisdictions (which usually correspond to countries, but not always). These ported licenses are based on the international license suite but have been modified to reflect local nuances in the expression of legal terms and conditions, drafting protocols, and language. The ported licenses and the international licenses are all intended to be legally effective everywhere. CC expects that few, if any, ports will be necessary for 4.0. CC recommends that you take advantage of the improvements in the 4.0 suite explained on the license versions page unless there are particular considerations you are aware of that would require a ported license. ------- More on the difference between versions: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions
@hwoarang: Can you acknowledge the relicensing please?>
Markos is on devaway. Since I haven't seen any objections, I have committed this now: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=9d33c1612fc3109fe64e3f5524e0b6e0a43df120
Ulm, please don’t kill me … There is (since October) a good reason why CC-BY-SA-4.0 would make more sense – it’s explicitly downstream compatible with GPL-3.0 now. Meaning that now you can finally copy sample code from a CC-BY-SA-4.0 manual and put it into a GPL-3.0 package. To this day, this is (at least according to FSF and CC) the only way how any CC *SA* licence and any GPL can be mixed. But even if we go for CC-BY-SA-3.0, the explicit and integral “or later” clause in the CC licences means that anyone can take documentation licensed as such and say “well, I’ll make use of the ‘or later’ clause and take this under CC-BY-SA-4.0” and mix it with GPL-3.0. But that’s an additional (mental) step.
(In reply to Matija "hook" Šuklje from comment #8) > There is (since October) a good reason why CC-BY-SA-4.0 would make more > sense – it’s explicitly downstream compatible with GPL-3.0 now. That won't help us much. Most code snippets in the devmanual would go into ebuilds which are GPL, version 2 only. Otherwise, what I said in comment 4 remains valid. If we move to CC-BY-SA-4.0 then it should be for all our documentation, so we can copy things between them when necessary. But that should be discussed more widely (not in a bug), so can you bring it up in the mailing lists, please?
Re-using this bug for relicensing to CC-BY-SA-4.0, because part of the rationale is already in comment #5 and comment #8. Furthermore: - There is GLEP 76 now, which recommends version 4.0 for documentation. - The "g" logo is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0, so embedding it in a web page that is licensed under 3.0 isn't entirely correct. More information on the changes in version 4.0 can be found here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Version_4
Created attachment 597662 [details, diff] Relicense the devmanual under CC-BY-SA-4.0.
+1
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=6a670a59ec76dd21871c4846f39e3a4650a983a8 commit 6a670a59ec76dd21871c4846f39e3a4650a983a8 Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2019-11-28 13:21:57 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2019-11-29 09:29:08 +0000 Relicense the devmanual under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/558732#c10 Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> LICENSE | 776 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ README.md | 2 +- appendices/contributing/text.xml | 4 +- bin/gen-eclass-html.sh | 2 +- devbook.xsl | 2 +- 5 files changed, 427 insertions(+), 359 deletions(-)
