Christopher Sheats:
> On 10/14/2015 03:25 AM, sajolida wrote:
>> I'm fine with b). We could say that everything under wiki/src is
>> CC-BY-SA 4.0. What would this imply in terms of work?
>>
>> - Making sure that this proposal is technically correct:
>> - That we are allowed to do that (and under which conditions).
>> - That we can still copy stuff from wiki/src elsewhere where the
>> GPL applies (in the code for example).
>> - Rework /doc/about/license.
>> - Add the text of CC-BY-SA under wiki/src?
>> - Contact everybody who contributed to wiki/src?
>>
>> Anything else?
>>
>> Christopher, if you know a bit of Git and are ready to work on this it
>> will probably take you less time than to rephrase our warnings enough to
>> be legally acceptable :)
>
> I have not used Git (ie: I am not a software engineer), but I have a
> GitHub account that I use for contributing bug reports. It must be an
> easy process using Debian/Ubuntu.
>
> If I can help Tails by updating existing docs or creating new docs, I am
> comfortable with that. Anything else I would need further education. I
> am a Seattle local if that helps.
Ok, then don't worry. I think that you're interest in licensing issues
here is much more valuable that technical Git knowledge :)
So would you be interested in working on the first point: "Making sure
that this proposal (dual licensing) is technically correct", adding as
intrigeri mentioned it the possibility of copying GPL text from the code
back into the doc?
Then I don't mind adding the text of CC-BY-SA and adjusting
/doc/about/license myself.
And to follow up on issues you raised elsewhere in the thread:
- No, I don't think we reused any documentation from the original
Linux docs.
- I don't expect it to be problematic regarding other contributors.
But maybe I need some clarification on what's should be
communicated to them, as intrigeri also mentioned "our collective
copyright claim" instead.
