No subject

documentation for new Evergreen features at the time that a Beta
release including those features is made available by the community
and announced on the general mailing list. This documentation will be
released CC BY-SA. No future Equinox-produced Evergreen documentation
will carry a CC BY-NC-SA license, and we are in the process of
removing the -NC license from the documentation we've already
published.  This decision is a reflection of our commitment to the
Equinox Promise, in particular to maintaining transparency, and
listening to and sharing with the community of which we are a part.

http://blog.esilibrary.com/2009/09/16/the-equinox-promise/

The feedback we received, in part, helped us come to this decision.
We appreciate the open dialogue, and I hope this decision helps cement
your faith in our commitment to the Evergreen community.

The new licensing information will read as follows:

Copyright: 2011 Equinox Software.
Creative Commons License <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
This work by Equinox Software, Inc. is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>.

--=20
Mike Rylander
=A0| Director of Research and Development
=A0| Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
=A0| phone:=A0 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
=A0| email:=A0 miker at esilibrary.com
=A0| web:=A0 http://www.esilibrary.com


On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote=
:
> Bradly,
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn
> <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> wrote:
>> [ Note: I'm not a subscriber to
>> =A0<open-ils-documentation at list.georgialibraries.org>, so please Cc
>> =A0<evergreen at sfconservancy.org> and/or <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> on
>> =A0responses. =A0Also, it is probably useful to keep Conservancy's Gener=
al
>> =A0Counsel, <tony at sfconservancy.org> included as well. =A0Thanks! ]
>
> Since in this email you were responding to the general points made so
> far in this thread I'll start my response here, but if I jump around
> to other emails I'll be sure to keep the full CC list there for you.
>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:24:20AM -0500, Jason Etheridge wrote:
>>>> For a specific example, see the bottom of
>>>> http://www.esilibrary.com/esi/docs/?p=3D3D771
>>
>> the bottom of that URL currently reads:
>>>> Copyright: 2011 Equinox Software. Available for redistribution with
>>>> proper attribution under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.
>>
>>>> Note: The Documentation Interest Group (DIG) for the Evergreen
>>>> Project is granted an overarching and exclusive CC BY-SA 3.0 license
>>>> for any Evergreen feature set documentation posted herein. The CC
>>>> BY-SA license is only applicable to DIG and only applies to
>>>> documentation for Evergreen feature sets.
>>
>> Dan Scott wrote at 11:59 (EST):
>>> Thanks, Jason; I'm going to CC this to the SFC to ask whether that
>>
>> Dan, thanks for bringing Conservancy into the discussion! =A0This is
>> indeed something that we can help with (and should be involved with
>> anyway, pursuant to the fiscal sponsorship agreement between Evergreen
>> and Conservancy).
>>
>
> ESI certainly agrees that licensing of the work published by the
> project falls under the purview of the Conservancy, but to be clear,
> the licensing in question here is that of ESI copyrighted material. =A0I
> know that's obvious, but I just want to make it clear that ESI has no
> desire or intention to hold sway over how the greater community (of
> which we, as individuals, are a part), and one of our main goals is to
> make sure that the community, embodied by those participating in the
> creation of Evergreen (in any capacity) and represented by the SFC, is
> the group primarily served by our efforts, in both production and use
> of material we create and release as OSS.
>
>>> My primary concern is that that "Documentation Interest Group (DIG)
>>> for the Evergreen Project" might not have any status as a legal entity
>>> and therefore a license granted to it might be meaningless.
>> ...
>>> Arguably, it's the SFC as the umbrella non-profit organization for the
>>> Evergreen project that has legal standing, so it might be the case
>>> that the exception needs to be granted to the SFC.
>>
>> Both these are important points, and I address them in (2) below.
>> However, I believe my issue (0) below is the most salient one and I
>> suggest that it be discussed first.
>>
>> Jason Etheridge wrote at 12:24 (EST):
>>>> Granting a license isn't legal advice; it's granting a license. =A0And
>>>> intent should matter.
>>
>> Licensor intent is indeed often considered by courts and others in
>> interpreting a license. =A0However, 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
>> =A0 separate CC-By-NC-SA and CC-By-SA licenses?
>>
>
> We can, and I will to the extent that it bears on this discussion, but
> I'm personally surprised that the "why do you want to do this" is more
> important that the "in what way does this effect Evergreen",
> particularly when we've gone out of our way to compromise, with Dan
> specifically, by preemptively publishing the explicit license grant to
> DIG, even after we made a simple request that someone ask us for the
> grant. =A0This was one of the things discussed in IRC, was requested by
> Dan; we agreed to it and immediately made it happen.
>
> Now for the "why", which has been discussed in general terms before,
> but can be said more directly.
>
> Equinox is the largest service provider for Evergreen support,
> training, hosting, and development. =A0Nearly everything we do is
> released back to the community for free, including documentation,
> development, arcane knowledge and expertise. =A0We don't have those
> lovely (evil) proprietary software fees to fall back on. =A0We make out
> living off of our services and we make our services off of our
> intellectual property. =A0In the short term, generally 6 weeks+/- of a
> new Evergreen release with new features, our documentation has very
> real value to us. =A0We understand the feature sets for which we write
> documentation more than anyone else because we wrote that code and
> that documentation. =A0We have real business value to be gained from
> that training revenue. We do, of course, realize that once the release
> has been adopted by libraries and DIG has released their
> documentation, this time sensitive value to us is significantly
> reduced.
>
> Additionally, we also believe that there is value to the community by
> keeping vendors with little or no Evergreen experience from taking
> this documentation and selling Evergreen services to the community
> without understanding that feature or that release. =A0This can hurt the
> community as a whole when people have bad service experiences and then
> go publicly complain about open source not being up to snuff. =A0It's
> important to note that the group that frequents this mailing list may
> be savvy in this regard, but there are a lot of people out there
> looking at open source who don't know which vendors have legitimate
> experience and which do not.
>
> Neither of these points are theoretical -- both have grounding in
> reality -- but, as I said near the top of the previous thread on this
> topic that Dan linked to, I will go no further than that in discussing
> specifics.
>
> So, with all of that said, we do have another option if simply having
> an CC-BY-NC-SA version of our documentation available to everyone in
> the world, while the DIG, for the purpose of releasing
> project-official documentation and through the SFC, has a CC-BY-SA, is
> more than the community can stomach. =A0We can simply post our
> documentation on our web site and leave it protected by copyright.
> Then, either at regular intervals, or when asked for it, or at some
> other triggering event, we release a CC-BY-SA licensed copy to DIG for
> incorporation into the official project documentation.
>
> Would this be more preferable? =A0My answer, looking at it from the
> perspective of freedom and finding an appropriate balance, is a
> resounding "no", because the base documentation is then more tightly
> controlled. =A0But, if the problem is primarily the hot-button issue of
> NC, then perhaps it would be better. =A0I default to freedom, though, so
> I'd rather use the more permissive license.
>
>> =A0 Specifically, Jason wrote:
>> =A0 >> Equinox really does want DIG--as we all understand DIG--to use
>> =A0 >> this documentation without any strings other than CC-BY-SA. =A0Bu=
t
>> =A0 >> Equinox also wants the NC license in place for anyone other than
>> =A0 >> DIG who gets the material directly from the website (as opposed t=
o
>> =A0 >> getting it through DIG).
>>
>> =A0 This confuses me, because I'm trying to figure out what Equinox's
>> =A0 enforcement plan is for the NC clause. =A0Suppose someone takes
>> =A0 distribution of the material from Equinox's website. =A0Either one o=
f
>> =A0 two things are true:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 (a) it's the same material they could receive from the Everg=
reen
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 project itself, under CC-By-SA, since DIG (see (2) b=
elow) can
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 redistribute under CC-By-SA at will.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 (b) the material differs slightly, and includes some copyrig=
hted
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 works that Equinox hasn't licensed to Evergreen.
>>
>> =A0 Consider (a) first. =A0Suppose Equinox finds someone using the mater=
ial
>> =A0 commercially, and says: "Stop! =A0You don't have a license, that stu=
ff
>> =A0 was CC-By-NC-SA". =A0The answer from the would-be violator is simple=
:
>> =A0 "Oh, we got our copy from Evergreen project, licensed to us as
>> =A0 CC-By-SA, so we can copy/modify/distribute it commercially". =A0I do=
n't
>> =A0 see what Equinox has actually accomplished in that scenario.
>
> The answer is (a). =A0But, again, the focus is on the "why", which I
> hope I've clarified well enough above, but isn't really pertinent to
> finding (or deciding, perhaps, that we have found) a solution that
> works for everyone involved.
>
>>
>> =A0 >> If, however, the DIG can be the recipient of a license exception,=
 then
>> =A0 >> given that the DIG membership is consituted of anyone who adds
>> =A0 >> themselves to
>> =A0 >> http://www.evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=3Devergreen-doc=
s:digparticipants,
>> =A0 >> in theory anyone could add themselves to that list and apply the
>> =A0 >> CC-BY-SA license.
>>
>
> This is actually a quote from Dan, not Jason, setting up a straw-man
> to show that one could get around the NC license if they just wanted
> to stick it to ESI.
>
> However, Equinox hopes that DIG (and others) will respect the process
> that it has previously established. =A0We expect DIG to continue to take
> care in their documentation efforts, to vet all documentation (even
> ours), test, fix errors, if necessary, and re-publish. =A0For example,
> ESI has had urgent requests for documentation, which we've produced
> and provided, that then went through vetting process that lasted
> longer than it took for us to complete the documentation as DIG
> participants worked to ensure that everything worked as described.
>
> We also understand that some in the community may urge DIG to simply
> take the ESI documentation and immediately post it to the DIG web site
> as is without due diligence simply to make Equinox's CC-BY-NC-SA moot.
> =A0DIG can certainly do that if they, as a group, choose to do so. =A0We
> would not and, in fact, could not, stop them. =A0But the motivation
> there would be obvious -- or it would be a tacit acknowledgement that
> ESI creates documentation without flaws, and that matches the voice
> and style that the project wants for the official documentation.
>
>>
>> =A0 I hope Equinox can shed some light on their intentions with this
>> =A0 licensing structure.
>>
>> 1. It's contradictory to call CC-By-SA an "exclusive license".
>>
>> =A0 [ This issue may be moot depending on what discussion of (0) above
>> =A0 yields. ]
>>
>> =A0 The "Note: " text above says that the CC-By-SA license is granted as
>> =A0 an "exclusive license". =A0This is a contradictory statement. =A0CC-=
By-SA
>> =A0 is absolutely *not* an exclusive license, so calling it such just
>> =A0 confuses the matter.
>>
>
> Equinox can grant a certain license exclusively to DIG (or DIG for the
> EG project/SFC). =A0This is not unusual for one party to be given a
> different license, meaning that license is given to one party while
> the rest of the world abides by another. =A0I think the thing that is
> confusing folks is that DIG gets a CC BY-SA license which allows them
> to then re-package and re-distribute the documentation as CC BY-SA.
> The exclusivity lies in who Equinox grants that privilege to, not in
> the license itself.
>
>> 2. Licensing for Evergreen comes via Conservancy, not DIG.
>>
>> =A0 [ This issue may be moot depending on what discussion of (0) above
>> =A0 yields. ]
>>
>> =A0 While Conservancy interprets the intent of the existing license text
>> =A0 above to mean that DIG -- and therefore by extension Evergreen -- an=
d
>> =A0 therefore by extension Conservancy itself -- is the ongoing recipien=
t
>> =A0 of the CC-By-SA license for any material with that "Note: " attached=
,
>> =A0 Dan is correct that it's confusing to grant a special license to an
>> =A0 entity that isn't a real legal entity. =A0Therefore, we'd suggest th=
at
>> =A0 if the text above is to be used, it should have the following edits:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0s/The Documentation Interest Group (DIG) for the Evergreen Pr=
oject/The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. (Conservancy), home of the Eve=
rgreen Project/
>> =A0 =A0 =A0s/DIG/Conservancy/g
>
>
> We will happily change this to whatever the most appropriate wording
> is. =A0How about this:
>
> Note: The The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. (Conservancy), home
> of the Evergreen Project, is exclusively granted an overarching CC
> BY-SA 3.0 license for any Evergreen feature set documentation posted
> herein. The CC BY-SA license is only applicable to Conservancy and
> only applies to documentation for Evergreen feature sets.
>
> -------------
>
> Thanks, Bradly, for your attention on this. =A0Our goal is simply to
> find something that works well for everyone involved. =A0We feel like
> we've done what's been asked of us, and we're happy to continue
> working on this.
>
> Dan's voice is important, of course, and he advocates well for
> software freedom, but please remember that ESI is for software freedom
> as well. =A0I don't think anything in our past could be construed as
> anti-freedom, and indeed we are attempting to provide the most freedom
> possible within the bounds of what we see as reasonable in terms of
> protecting ourselves and the community.
>
> One last note. =A0I see that DIG has already begun incorporating some of
> our documentation, since this license discussion began, into the
> official repository and I would be interested to hear the opinions
> those working on the docs right now, as it seems that we may have de
> facto already struck an appropriate balance.
>
> Again, thanks!
>
> --
> Mike Rylander
> =A0| Director of Research and Development
> =A0| Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
> =A0| phone:=A0 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
> =A0| email:=A0 miker at esilibrary.com
> =A0| web:=A0 http://www.esilibrary.com