[Grok-dev] Re: license for docs
daniel
daniel.carraher at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 11:13:58 EST 2008
I have a question: Is there a perceived or existing difference with regards
to this topic between what one would call "official documentation" versus
simple fan-made how-tos?
Can you describe how doc licensing is dividing the zope ecosystem across
code bases? I'm not familiar with this. The biggest problems I have seen
with zope is a complete lack of documentation past the doctest level and
even worse, no kind of organization or versioning system so that when you
search for docs new and relevant versions can be obscured by old and
deprecated docs.
It all seems to stem from a lack of motivation from the developing
contributors to bother with documentation rather than from a license issue.
There may also be a general feeling by developers that the code is self
evident enough to them so why bother. Unfortunately it becomes a nightmare
for new users who are obviously not in the same ballpark as zope developers
and are trying to get to know zope because it makes the learning curve into
a cliff with no guidance on how to scale it.
As far as zope goes the only practical route for a new user seems to be to
buy phillip's book, which is really good and I'd recommend it, however
official documentation it is not.
On Feb 1, 2008 9:33 AM, David Pratt <fairwinds at eastlink.ca> wrote:
> Well said, Tres. Licensing consistency has indeed been 'the' issue that
> has and continues to divide the zope ecosystem across code bases. Any
> other licensing scheme for documentation can only contribute to turmoil.
> I trust that while Martijn has agreed to raising the issue with the ZF,
> that this rationale is at the forefront (and in the memory) of the
> decision makers. Many thanks.
>
> Regards
> David
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > daniel wrote:
> >
> >> Well, there's the matter of whether the ZPL is even legally applicable
> to
> >> documentation instead of software and also in what jurisdictions.
> >> ZPL 2.1 mentions source code, binaries, products, files... a not what
> I'd
> >> call documentation.
> >>
> >>> +1 for the ZPL, as it matches the software, *and* fits under the IP
> >>> policy of the Zope Foundation, which is responsible for the hosting of
> >>> grok.zope.org <http://grok.zope.org/>.
> >> When I host my documents under a microsoft service do I have to license
> them
> >> according to microsoft IP policy?
> >
> > If the terms of the site say so, then yes: those terms govern your
> > rights to upload / modify original or derived works there. For
> > instance, I participate on a site (kompoz.com) which fosters musical
> > collaboration: the site governs a set of allowed licenses, from which a
> > project owner selects at project creation time: all tracks contributed
> > to the project are then under the same license. The project authoer
> > cannot use a license which is outside the allowed set, nor change the
> > license after creating the project. The very first paragraph of the
> > "Terms of Use" page[1] states:
> >
> > BY USING THIS SERVICE, YOU INDICATE YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THESE TERMS
> > AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS,
> > DO NOT USE THIS SITE.
> >
> > At the moment, we are debating what the terms-of-use should be for
> > grok.zope.org, under the umbrella policies established by the
> > controlling entity (the Zope Foundation).
> >
> >> You could go all the way and force people to pass their copyright to
> the
> >> Zope Foundation too, why don't you propose that? It would certainly
> make
> >> things easier for the project.
> >
> > Originally, most of the content was served from the filesystem vis SVN,
> > and was therefore under the ZPL, as well as joint-assigned to Zope
> > Corporation. The joint assignment will be transferred to the ZF as soon
> > as an ugly bylaws bug gets ironed out. As with the ZPL, joint
> > assignment to the ZF of content contributed through the web seems
> > reasonably consistent and easy to understand, and would indeed keep
> > things simple.
> >
> >> Alas I was under the impression that grok.zope.org now redirects to the
> >> quintagroup hosting, not zope hosting.
> >
> > It doesn't "redirect": the server *may* be hosted on Quintagroup's
> > server (the IP is not in the same Class C as either www.zope.org or
> > quintagroup.org, so I can't tell). If so, QuintaGroup is donating the
> > hosting as a service donated to the Zope Foundation, just as Amaze is
> > donating the hosting for wiki.zope.org and foundation.zope.org.
> >
> >> I'll be open to hear the benefits of using the ZPL for documentation.
> >> If my documentation isn't welcome with whatever license I
> >> choose at the end of the process, then go ahead and take it down I have
> no
> >> problem with that.
> >
> > I'll try to elaborate:
> >
> > - Keeping the license for the docs consistent with the license for the
> > software makes the story simple: the culture of the project is
> > already adapted to the ZPL's "liberal" / BSD-like license terms.
> >
> > - Some docs are alread ZPL'ed / joint assigned, due to their SVN
> > provenance; again, consistency is a virtue.
> >
> > - The use of disparate licenses creates "ghettos" with unequal
> > sharing rights: the authors of some content can reuse other authors'
> > content on more liberal terms than they offer for their own content.
> >
> > This problem has arisen (for software) in the past, and served to
> > split the community tnto isolated factions.
> >
> > - Any other license would likely need clearance from the Zope
> > Foundation under the terms of its IP Policy[2], which states:
> >
> > By signing the Membership Agreement or Committer Agreement, as
> > applicable, all Members and Committers agree to comply with this IP
> > Policy. In addition, this IP Policy shall serve as the basis for
> > how non-Members and non-Committers interact with the Zope Foundation
> > through participation in a Project, web-sites owned, controlled,
> > published and/or managed under the auspices of the Zope Foundation,
> > or otherwise.(1.1)
> >
> > and
> >
> > This policy should be read to strongly discourage, but not
> > prohibit, the licensing of any Content under terms and
> > conditions that would require the object code, source code and
> > derivative works of any Content to be distributed by the Zope
> > Foundation under terms and conditions other than the ZPL. (2.1.1)
> >
> > and
> >
> > In no circumstance will the Zope Foundation accept or distribute
> > contributions or Content under licenses or associated terms and
> > conditions that assert "copyleft" provisions on derivative works
> > . This includes but is not limited to the GNU General Public License
> > (GPL). [2.1.2]
> >
> >> Whether I'd bother to host it somewhere else is debatable though.
> >
> > I hope you can still contribute under the terms we establish here for
> > grok.zope.org
> >
> >
> > [1] http://kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/terms.music
> >
> > [2] http://foundation.zope.org/agreements/ZopeFoundation_IP_Policy.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > Tres.
> > - --
> > ===================================================================
> > Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver at palladion.com
> > Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFHoYRm+gerLs4ltQ4RAo9YAJ9HoVa6i9ENbl4PJxR4OaGb1ZrwBQCePFsl
> > EKCx6HSGV41W4Ab1adwiP0k=
> > =5BMj
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Grok-dev mailing list
> > Grok-dev at zope.org
> > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/grok-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Grok-dev mailing list
> Grok-dev at zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/grok-dev
>
--
-- Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/grok-dev/attachments/20080201/a3ce56ba/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Grok-dev
mailing list