[OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] Equinox license to DIG

[Dan Scott]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:24:24PM -0500, Jason Etheridge wrote:
> <snip>
> > If, however, the DIG can be the recipient of a license exception, then
> > given that the DIG membership is consituted of anyone who adds
> > themselves to
> > http://www.evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=evergreen-docs:digparticipants,
> > in theory anyone could add themselves to that list and apply the
> > CC-BY-SA license.
> 
> However DIG wants to govern itself or not govern itself; but I would
> expect for someone on that list to be doing such as a part of DIG,
> however it is defined, and not in some other context.
> 
> >> So DIG should feel free to use such documents with their normal
> >> CC-BY-SA license (with all that implies).
> >
> > Well, since neither you nor I are lawyers and what we say should not be
> > considered to constitute legal advice, I would personally suggest that
> > the DIG hold off on redistributing any relicensed documentation derived from
> > Equinox's primarily CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 licensed documentaiton until we hear
> > back from the SFC (as they do employ a lawyer).
> 
> Granting a license isn't legal advice; it's granting a license.  And

Your recommendation that DIG consider the attempt to grant a license as
valid, and that members of the DIG should therefore feel free to go
forth and distribute that documentation under a license that is
different than its primary license, may fall in the realm of legal
advice.

SFC, as the legal entity that (I think) is ultimately the organization
that would get dragged into a legal dispute, might want to provide some
guidance to the Evergreen project about what on the one hand seems to be
a simple grant of license with the best of intentions but which may or
may not be more complicated than that.

If I distribute a copy of documentation derived from Equinox's
documentation on coffeecode.net as an effort to demonstrate an
AsciiDoc-based publishing system (and thus retrieved directly from
Equinox and not via the DIG, which is currently redistributing
DocBook-formatted content), is that protected by the DIG license
grant? Or is it a work effort of Laurentian University during my day
hours? Or is it a work effort of CoffeeCode Consulting during my evening
hours?

Note that I'm not listed on the DIG participant's list, even though I
participate in the mailing list and meetings.

Even if I was listed in the DIG participant's list, I could be open to
accusations that my efforts were primarily intended to bring attention
to either my university (higher visibility attracts more students
increases revenue == arguably a commercial activity) or my little
consulting business rather than to DIG, and therefore in violation of
the special DIG license grant. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has
a day job - and in that case, all that we have to protect us is a
reassurance that Equinox means well.

Given my concern, I could approach Equinox and ask for a license to
distribute documentation derived from their docs. But this is all a
perfect example of the kind of friction that the NC clause introduces.
Rather than writing code or documentation or helping people on the
mailing lists, I'm trying to ensure that the project (and by extension
the SFC) is comfortable with the special CC-BY-SA license grant to the
DIG, and I'm pointing out (what seem to me to be) very real problems
that are caused in the broader Evergreen community by Equinox's choice
to include the NC clause.

> intent should matter.  Equinox really does want DIG--as we all

Intent certainly matters, but if we get the licensing details right then
it matters less.