[ocaml-infra] ocaml.org licensing

[Ashish Agarwal]

Hi Louis. Have you had a chance to review? We'd like your input. Thanks.


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Louis Gesbert
<louis.gesbert at ocamlpro.com>wrote:

> Very good move, thanks for doing this clarification !
>
> However we do have a number of contents on ocaml.org ; we'll need to go
> through them and discuss their licensing internally to give a proper
> response.
>
> Thanks,
> Louis
>
> Le lundi 10 février 2014, 09:20:54 Ashish Agarwal a écrit :
> > Dear all,
> >
> > The content and implementation of the OCaml.org website do not have
> > licenses specified, which should be fixed. Our goal is to encourage
> > contributions, give appropriate credit to contributors, and maximize the
> > utility of the website for the entire OCaml community. We would like the
> > community's feedback on the following proposal:
> >
> > (A) Content is released under CC BY-SA 4.0 [1].
> > (B) Code that implements the site is released under the ISC license [2].
> > (C) Code examples within content are released under the UNLICENSE [3].
> > (D) Design of the site. All rights reserved by the OCaml.org project.
> > (E) OCaml logo is released under the UNLICENSE [3].
> > (F) Abstracts, slides from meetings. Rights retained by contributor.
> >
> > Here is our reasoning for each of the above:
> >
> > (A) Content refers to text that is visible by readers at
> > http://ocaml.org(except for code; see (C) below). We'd like others to
> > be able to use these
> > materials but we don't want to create a situation where content that is
> > freely given to the community (which amounts to a substantive volume of
> > work) is then taken and monetized without giving back.
> >
> > The CC BY-SA 4.0 license [1] allows anyone to share and adapt the work,
> > including for commercial gain, as long as that work is also released
> under
> > the same (or compatible) license. This means that commercial works could
> be
> > produced but free versions would also have to be made available. Thus,
> the
> > community wouldn't lose out on any derivative work.
> >
> > (B) Code that implements ocaml.org. We want the code implementing the
> site
> > to be open source and available for others to use as they wish. Examples
> of
> > this include the files found under the 'script' folder of the repository
> > [6]. The ISC licence [2] has already been chosen for OMD and MPP, two
> > libraries that OCaml.org relies on substantially. Additional scripts are
> > not particularly complex in nature, and we feel their use should not be
> > restricted.
> >
> > (C) Code examples within content. For example, you can see many of these
> on
> > the 99 problems page [5]. These are typically small pieces of useful code
> > and we want people to be able to use them however they see fit. We want
> to
> > do this without the burden of attribution that an open source license
> (e.g.
> > ISC) would require, so placing them in the public domain seems like the
> > sensible thing to do. The UNLICENSE [3] is one way of putting works in
> the
> > public domain and is how code examples in Real World OCaml are released
> [4].
> >
> > (D) Design of the site. This is essentially the CSS, banner image, and
> > custom logos (except the OCaml logo, see (E) below). The design uniquely
> > identifies ocaml.org, and it would be awkward if another site looked
> > similar. It seems sensible to reserve all rights over the design and
> > disallow copying it in any form.
> >
> > (E) The new OCaml logo [7], which you see in the top-left of ocaml.org,
> > should be encouraged. We hope this can be a unifying symbol of all things
> > related to OCaml. Everyone should use this logo in their OCaml blogs,
> > websites, documentation, presentations, T-shirts, stickers, etc. Thus, it
> > should be usable freely by all, which can be achieved by releasing it
> under
> > the UNLICENSE.
> >
> > (F) OCaml.org also hosts abstracts and slides for various meetings, such
> as
> > the OCaml Users and Developers Workshop. Contributors should retain all
> > rights over those works or be subject to whatever agreement they have
> with
> > the respective meeting. They are not considered part of the Content as
> > defined in (A).
> >
> > [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
> > [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
> > [3] http://unlicense.org
> > [4] https://github.com/realworldocaml/examples/blob/master/UNLICENSE
> > [5] http://ocaml.org/learn/tutorials/99problems.html
> > [6] https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml.org
> > [7] http://ocaml.org/img/ocaml.png
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ocaml.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20140218/58891407/attachment.html>