From: "W. Kent Starr" <elderburn@...>
Date: 2001-03-07T09:21:22+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:12195] Re: Licensing, Intellectual Property, and Ruby code (longish)

On Tuesday 06 March 2001 13:03, Ben Tilly wrote:
> Colin Steele <colin@webg2.com> wrote:
> >I am struggling with issues of licensing, intellectual property, and
> >Ruby code, as it relates to the site I've been working on - the Ruby
> >Cookbook (www.rubycookbook.org).
> >
> >Specifically, my question is:
> >
> >     "Should a public forum for the development of Ruby code require
> >      that the code posted to it be licensed in such a fashion that
> >      allows/encourages the open development, use and modification of
> >      such code?"
>
> Excellent question.  One problem with CPAN is that the
> licensing is a mess.  I think it is important to agree
> on licensing up front.
>
> >One might think, "Hey, all comments/code are copyright by their
> >respective posters, right?"  That is certainly one possibility.  Many
> >user-generated-content sites on the net (like Slashdot), use this
> >model.
>
> CPAN also uses it, with the result that if you want to do
> something like cut it to CD, you are going to have
> serious problems.  And there are modules there which
> cannot be used in GPLed code, modules that cannot be used
> in commercial code, it is a mess.
>
> >However, the Cookbook is different, in that it is specifically used
> >for the archival, distribution, and development of *source code*.  If
> >the posted code does not have some sort of open license, it makes it
> >illegal (strictly speaking) for that code to be used/modified in any
> >way without working out the licensing/ownership issues with the
> >author.
>
> Yup.
>
> >There are a ways to resolve this issue.  The one I'm leaning towards
> >is having the site's "Terms of Service" specify that any content
> >submitted to the site is done under the terms of the GNU Public
> >License (GPL).
>
> Good idea.  Bad choice of license.
>
> >What do you folks think of this issue in general?  What do you think
> >of having posted code automatically become GPL'd?
>
> I think that a cookbook should be free to be widely
> used, including within commercial code.  (Many people
> work at companies and it would be a bad idea to have
> the lawyers asking why they now have to GPL stuff...)
> It should be at least as free as Ruby.  I think that a
> BSD type license would be ideal.  So your terms of
> service would say that all code had to be available
> under license X (where X had very few restrictions)
> but commentary about the code remained the property of
> their respective posters (thereby preventing someone
> from downloading the site, editing slightly, and then
> publishing as a book).
>
> I also think that it would be good for RAA to set a
> licensing policy early rather than late.
>

There is a bumper sticker I see from time to time that reads "beatify America 
-- shoot a lawyer!".  Perhaps that might be the ultimate effective solution 
to the licensing mess? :-)

Regards,

Kent Starr
elderburn@mindspring.com