[OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] Equinox license to DIG

[Dan Scott]

Hi Bradley:

Thanks for the very quick response; 

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 02:49:05PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
<snip> 
> Jason Etheridge wrote at 12:24 (EST):
> >> Granting a license isn't legal advice; it's granting a license.  And
> >> intent should matter.
> 
> Licensor intent is indeed often considered by courts and others in
> interpreting a license.  However, given that we're discussing this, I'd
> suggest we discuss the current license grant text, and perhaps come to a
> mutually agreeable resolution on changes to it, rather than merely
> relying on the grant text as written.
> 
> To that end, there are three issues that I'd like to raise here:
> 
> 0. Could you perhaps tell us what Equinox seeks to accomplish by issuing
>    separate CC-By-NC-SA and CC-By-SA licenses?

<snip>

>    I hope Equinox can shed some light on their intentions with this
>    licensing structure.

For some context, I can refer you to the thread that began on the
Evergreen General mailing list around here:
http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/2011-November/005737.html

Some conversations have been held in IRC meetings since then on the
subject but I'm not sure if there is anything with a clearer message to
which I can point. I had hoped to avoid involving the Conservancy at all
and don't want to burden you/it further with IRC logs that only have
trace references to the matter.

> 1. It's contradictory to call CC-By-SA an "exclusive license".
> 
>    [ This issue may be moot depending on what discussion of (0) above
>    yields. ]
> 
>    The "Note: " text above says that the CC-By-SA license is granted as
>    an "exclusive license".  This is a contradictory statement.  CC-By-SA
>    is absolutely *not* an exclusive license, so calling it such just
>    confuses the matter.
>  
> 2. Licensing for Evergreen comes via Conservancy, not DIG.
> 
>    [ This issue may be moot depending on what discussion of (0) above
>    yields. ]
> 
>    While Conservancy interprets the intent of the existing license text
>    above to mean that DIG -- and therefore by extension Evergreen -- and
>    therefore by extension Conservancy itself -- is the ongoing recipient
>    of the CC-By-SA license for any material with that "Note: " attached,
>    Dan is correct that it's confusing to grant a special license to an
>    entity that isn't a real legal entity.  Therefore, we'd suggest that
>    if the text above is to be used, it should have the following edits:
>       s/The Documentation Interest Group (DIG) for the Evergreen Project/The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. (Conservancy), home of the Evergreen Project/
>       s/DIG/Conservancy/g

Thanks for these clarifications!