Hi,
Christopher Sheats wrote (13 Oct 2015 21:03:53 GMT) :
> Sadly, I will need to re-word your work to stay within
> legal boundaries. Because of the content we are remixing from
> other CC sources, the content we are developing will be CC-BY-SA (and
> cannot also be GPL3).
Anyone interested in this topic, there's a good summary there:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa
So, someone (possibly the Tails project) has to change their mind.
a) Other ("CC") sources publish their work in a way that can be mixed
with GPL-3 licensed work; you license under GPL-3 the work
resulting from mixing their ("CC") work, ours (Tails) and new
content of yours (that could itself be under whatever license you
want as long as it's compatible enough with GPL-3);
b) We relicense Tails documentation in a way that anyone can take
content from there and put it under CC-BY-SA (4.0 presumably, since
earlier versions are not DFSG-free IIRC).
* We ("Tails developers") claim to hold the copyright on the
entire source tree. As long as this claim is not contested, then
we're allowed to relicense as we wish.
* Dual-licensing would be ideal but I don't know if it can work in
this case. I am not an expert in this field, though.
* IMO CC-BY-SA is OK, so what matters is keeping our ability to
copy'n'paste content between our documentation and source code
without any need for licensing second thoughts (many Tails
contributors are not skilled at licensing matters, nor do they
find them particularly exciting to spend time on). I think
that's one of the main criteria that shall be used to evaluate
re-licensing proposals.
Christopher, just to be clear: thinking through (b) and implementing
it will take us time, and we're working on scarce resources. You might
find (a) easier. Or, you could help make (b) happen :)
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
