spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: agenda item: copyright for new website

2005-06-15 04:29:22
In <200506151305(_dot_)11024(_dot_)bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle 
<bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:

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.

Right, and I think this is actually an advantage.  By having many
individuals hold (derivative) copyrights over the works (documentation
or code), any of the individuals have standing to sue for copyright
infringement if someone violates the license.  Also, it makes changing
the license very hard, since all copyright holders would need to
approve. 


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.

IIRC, the Debian folks hvae even bigger problems with the Creative
Commons license.


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.

Yeah, Debian has a consistent, well thought out extremism similar to
RMS and DJB.  They can all be *very* annoying at times, but they are
all worth listening to.  I wouldn't follow them on all their
positions, but I certainly would listen to them.


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.

IIRC, the current logo was selected via a contest back in either 2004
or 2003.  Creating a good logo is *very* hard to do, and I think we
selected the best of the bunch.


-wayne