From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date: 2011-09-08T02:31:22+09:00
Subject: Re: posts on Unix systems programming

Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:00:26AM +0900, Eric Wong wrote:
> I think this would be great, and if it ends up being on a separate,
> dedicated mailing list (as some people have requested), I hope we'll be
> informed enough in advance so that nobody misses anything (especially
> me).

Will do, it'll be a separate post with [ANN] in the title.

> > All of my posts will be licensed under the GPLv3, but code examples will
> > be all-permissive and reusable freely without attribution.
> 
> Do you plan to use something like the Creative Commons 0 waiver or the
> GNU All-Permissive License to explictly establish this permissive
> distribution permission?

I'm leaning towards CC0.  The GNU All-Permissive License still mentions
retaining the copyright.  I've also considered WTFPL.

> > If anybody wants to take mailing list posts and make a website/wiki or
> > even publish a book so more people can read it, please do so!  The
> > GPLv3 protects readers who circumvent DRM if distributed in proprietary
> > formats.  Editorial help to fix/correct things will be greatly
> > appreciated.
> 
> GPLv3 provides essentially the same legal protection for circumventing
> DRM that (almost) any other open source license provides, as far as I'm
> aware.  What GPLv3 does differently is require distribution of the
> complete mechanism for the DRM in usable/source form, including keys, as
> I understand it.  In some respects, Creative Commons Attribution License
> (CC-BY, the most permissive Creative Commons license apart from public
> domain statements and waivers of copyright protections) is actually more
> protective against DRM by simply disallowing "any effective technological
> measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work
> from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms
> of the License."

GPLv3 neutralizes laws like the DMCA ("3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights
From Anti-Circumvention Law.").  The GPLv2 did not do this.

Preventing DRM could be problematic to some distributors (e.g. Debian).
This is part of the reason I chose GPLv3 over the GFDL.

> Of course, I think that any attempt to address DRM for something like
> this is unnecessary licensing complexity, but if you feel otherwise I
> think these considerations are worth . . . considering.  In addition, the
> GPLv3 deals with a lot of complexity that does not really apply to
> non-code content, which some might consider reasons to use a license more
> appropriate for documentation per se, or that does not make assumptions
> about the form of the materials distributed.
> 
> standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this should not be taken as
> legal advice, blah blah blah, please don't sue me.

I'm not a lawyer, either.  I'm strongly in favor of readers being able
to modify/update/translate all future versions.  DRM is a threat to
that.  I think the GPLv3 is the best understood and most accepted
license for doing what I want.

-- 
Eric Wong