spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: agenda item: copyright for new website

2005-06-15 04:05:10
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

William Leibzon wrote:
There are two separate questions here:
  1. Copyright of the data on the website
  2. License for using information on the website

Question number 1 is what Meng asked and it boils down to deciding who
would be Copyright Holder. Copyright Holder must be legal entity and
this creates a problem in that SPF Council is not a legal entity.

Several individuals can hold the copyrights, like on Wikipedia.

I think the real question is:  Is any current content (text or design) 
copyrighted by anyone outside the council?  If so, can we get a 2.-style 
license from them?

I don't have any good suggestions for you know, probably the only
solution is to have somebody from the council volunteer to be legally
responsible for the content and considered copyright holder on behalf
of the council (or all your names together).

As for responsibility, I agree that someone should volunteer.  I'd do it in 
my position as council secretary, but the executive director (Meng) would 
also be a logical choice.

Regarding license the question is more about how you want the text
and other data from the site used. If there is no problem with text
appearing on any other website with reference to spf site, then go
ahead with GFDL or Creative Common License.

I think we should go with the GFDL, however the Debian project has some 
problems with it[1] which we should keep in mind, e.g. we shouldn't use 
invariant sections.

I know the Debian folks are sort of freedom nazis, so we shouldn't 
specifically try to fulfull all of their requirements, but some of their 
concerns are valid IMO.

Also depending on the license chosen for the site you might want to
have separate license for images like spf logo that are for use by
sites & MTAs that support SPF. You might want to have license that
does not allow somebody who is not providing SPF compatible software
to use such an image.

Yes, we should create an SPF logo (or improve the existing one) and have a 
separate license for it.  Very good idea.

References:
 1. http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCsAtmwL7PKlBZWjsRAo0iAKDD8CQlXRB0wG9nsPd6qqIG0cXz4gCfRdO7
vTykL4XWwnROLs0LnGWM88c=
=mzmf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----