[steering-discuss] Add LGPL as license for wiki uploads?

Hi all,

Florian suggested to ask this question here:

Would it be reasonable to add LGPL as license to the uploads to the TDF wiki?

At the moment we only allow <no license specified> and <Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported>

I'd like to add <LGPL 3.0+> as possible license and could imagine to have <CC BY-SA + LGPL> as standard selection.

The background of my question:

At the moment we work on the LibO mimetype icons and upload the source files to the wiki.

If they would be licensed right from the beginning under LGPL, the final icons could easily be integrated in the product without asking every contributor for licensing their work under LGPL.

This might be true for other graphics too when we start working on the "Community Branding".

I could imagine other parts of the package that might be handled in a similar way (menu icons, templates, gallery items ...).

I'm not a license expert, but nobody told me about negative aspects of such a double license strategy by now, so I just wanted to post my ideas...

Best regards

Bernhard

PS: Is the CC license upgradeable?
We know about the problems of LGPL without the "+" feature. Even if the wiki content might not be as crucial as product code, an upgradeable license could make sense IMHO.

Hi Bernhard,

Would it be reasonable to add LGPL as license to the uploads to the TDF
wiki?

  Yes - sounds like a great idea.

At the moment we only allow <no license specified> and <Creative Commons
Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported>

  The CC commons is at least the Debain compatible v3 one (?)

I'd like to add <LGPL 3.0+> as possible license and could imagine to
have <CC BY-SA + LGPL> as standard selection.

  Ok; we are using the LGPLv3+/MPL dual for code; might be nice to keep
that consistent for artwork too.

  Apart from that it is an excellent idea.

  Presuambly someone needs to tweak the wiki somehow to support this
though (?) - Thorsten ? :slight_smile:

  ATB,

    Michael.

Hi Michael,

  Ok; we are using the LGPLv3+/MPL dual for code; might be nice to keep
that consistent for artwork too.

  Apart from that it is an excellent idea.

  Presuambly someone needs to tweak the wiki somehow to support this
though (?) - Thorsten ? :slight_smile:

I can do it - I just need to know the exact string. At the moment, we have:

CC-by-sa-3.0 = Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

What would we need in additional and "official" license title?

Florian

Oh - grief; to turn it into a big string; I would say:

CC-by-sa-LGPL-MPL = Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
Unported, or Lesser GNU General Public License 3.0 or later version, or
Mozilla Public License 1.1

  that is quite a mouthful but ... :slight_smile:

  HTH,

    Michael.

Hi,

CC-by-sa-LGPL-MPL = Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
Unported, or Lesser GNU General Public License 3.0 or later version, or
Mozilla Public License 1.1

thanks :wink:

Have edited http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/MediaWiki:Licenses accordingly.

Florian

Florian Effenberger schrieb:

Hi,

CC-by-sa-LGPL-MPL = Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
Unported, or Lesser GNU General Public License 3.0 or later version, or
Mozilla Public License 1.1

I don't know if it should read "and" instead of "or":

The selection is presented to the author of the upload, so she has to license her work under all the three of them, if she choose this option.

"Or" is for the people using the uploaded content, as they can choose between the licenses.

thanks :wink:

Have edited http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/MediaWiki:Licenses
accordingly.

Thanks, but...

1) the text is too long for the selection list
Perhaps you could write:
"CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 / LGPL 3+ / MPL 1.1"

and move the long version to the template?

2) the template showing the license texts (or linking to them) hasn't been created by now.

I will not have access to the wiki until Sunday, so I can't help here - anybody else?

Best regards

Bernhard

Hi,

I don't know if it should read "and" instead of "or":

The selection is presented to the author of the upload, so she has to
license her work under all the three of them, if she choose this option.

"Or" is for the people using the uploaded content, as they can choose
between the licenses.

good point.

Thanks, but...

1) the text is too long for the selection list
Perhaps you could write:
"CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 / LGPL 3+ / MPL 1.1"

Changed it now to "CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, and LGPL 3+, and MPL 1.1"

and move the long version to the template?

2) the template showing the license texts (or linking to them) hasn't
been created by now.

Which template?

Florian

Hi Florian,

Florian Effenberger wrote:

Hi,

> I don't know if it should read "and" instead of "or":
>
> The selection is presented to the author of the upload, so she has to
> license her work under all the three of them, if she choose this option.
>
> "Or" is for the people using the uploaded content, as they can choose
> between the licenses.

good point.

> Thanks, but...
>
> 1) the text is too long for the selection list
> Perhaps you could write:
> "CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 / LGPL 3+ / MPL 1.1"

Changed it now to "CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, and LGPL 3+, and MPL 1.1"

> and move the long version to the template?
>
> 2) the template showing the license texts (or linking to them) hasn't
> been created by now.

Which template?

Once you chose a license, a template is added to the page.

For the CC by-sa license I created http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Template:CC-by-sa-3.0 because I got a redlink when wanted to license my first upload. (As I didn't read any negative feedback, I hope the wording is allright)

The new license doesn't have a template containing the license information / links to the license texts, so I got a redlink again. But instead of describing what I think has to be done, I just managed to write a short description and added the necessary links:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Template:CC-by-sa-LGPL-MPL

Please improve my wording and/or change the links if necessary.

Best regards

Bernhard

Hi,

Once you chose a license, a template is added to the page.

For the CC by-sa license I created http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Template:CC-by-sa-3.0 because I got a redlink when wanted to license my first upload. (As I didn't read any negative feedback, I hope the wording is allright)

The new license doesn't have a template containing the license information / links to the license texts, so I got a redlink again. But instead of describing what I think has to be done, I just managed to write a short description and added the necessary links:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Template:CC-by-sa-LGPL-MPL

Please improve my wording and/or change the links if necessary.

ah, thanks for clarifying! Don't have the time for this before my Christmas vacation, but if someone wants to improve the wording (if necessary :slight_smile: let me know, I can then upload the modified text.

Florian