Subject: Re: DRM, FDL, GPLv3, etc.
From: Quinn Weaver <quinn@funkspiel.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:36:21 -0800

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 03:03:12PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
> This license discussion has taken over my original thread
> (FSBs and mechanized documentation) to the point where (I
> suspect) it is discouraging folks from trying to discuss
> the original topic.
> 
> Here's a nice, shiny Subject line of your own.  Shalom...

OK, about the issue of data licenses...

Aside from the practical merits of Rich's proposal (which I think are
considerable, and deserve a good discussion), there apparently are some
licensing issues that could stymie its deployment.  For example, the data
in bug-tracking systems are not free.

This is silly.  Most open-source projects[1] want to encourage openness;
they just aren't thinking about the data issue.

Shouldn't we have an easy-to-understand, easy-to-apply license for
these kinds of metadata?  Does one exist already?  Isn't it a problem
that I don't know the answers to these questions off the top of my
head (although I do know the ins and outs of many source-code licenses)?

You may not like its licenses, but Creative Commons has been
successful at raising awareness about copyleft.  It's also made
it very easy to apply its licenses:  You fill in a form, and it gives
you the HTML to paste into your web page, complete with nice
images.

Maybe it's time to do the same for project metadata.

If nothing else, this thread has convinced me that I should make a
license grant for my projects' metadata.  But what license should I
use?



[1] I realize that some companies may choose not to share their data,
but that shouldn't stop the rest of us.  If we lead, they may later
follow (as they've done with open source per se).