[oi-dev] Public Documentation License (terms)

[Nikola M]

On 05/18/16 03:33 AM, Michael Kruger wrote:
> The 'OpenSolaris' documents hosted on the Oracle website do NOT 
> contain any such PDL license declaration either visibly or contained 
> in the HTML source. I think it's safe to conclude PDF copies of these 
> documents are not PDL licensed either.

Oracle holds copyright so they can do whatever they want.
Then don't look at PDFs from Oracle if it brings you FUD as a topic,
there are PDFs with Opensoalris logos made for 2009.06 release.
So it's weither you got one archive or another.. and there is also 
Solbooktrans tols to make it.

Don't get obsessed with licenses too much.

You can you accept PDL?

>
> How exactly does one go about identifying the original portions from 
> the Joyent modified portions? 

Why does that matter actually if they accepted it. You can ask people 
contributing.


> One might even say editing a PDL licensed document outside of some 
> kind of change tracking system would likely NOT be in compliance with 
> the terms of the license UNLESS they also manually (and might I say 
> painstakingly) documented exactly what changed, and precisely who made 
> the changes. 

There is a world before CVS and both can be used, one can take 
file-based contributions and bring them to CVS with needed info.
This is a wrong conclusion, but is a right answer.

If CVS is used to document attribution and history, then it is good to 
be consistent with it, but no one stops anyone to use both.
So basically you can't stop people to contribute however they like actually.

Notice that attribution recording topic is unrelated to tools used to 
make changes are on thord-party site or local apps, and wiether CVS and 
contribution process is on-OI site or elsewhere in the wild.

Actual in-CVS listing contributions (and having them extracted from time 
to time to also have a listing of contributions in other way) I think is 
preferred way.
And listing contribution and recording in one way or another does not 
exclude one another at all.
(it is better to say both have it's uses and benefits), where most 
benefit is seen with separating attribution list from actual content 
that might be filled with copyright notices over time. Yet producing 
automated list of contributors with list of their work is good to have.

> So, if the content found on openindiana.org or wiki.openindiana.org 
> were PDL licensed, then it would also follow that any document created 
> from such content would then need to include all the contributor names 
> in it's PDL notice.

This is not resolved yet for Wiki...
If it is, then I think that would be needed only on first import to save 
the space and time later, but it can include it later

You can't just suck up on our wiki to external place just like that (and 
why would want to exclude it's contents from Openindiana.org??.

Contribution process is other way around, you submit articles, they get 
included in Wiki.
Revisioning of your articles before coming to the site, should come up 
to Wiki first to be checked out.
Nothing is going to OI site (and why would go to site by default?) 
before revised first.

> And if a large document such as a new handbook was created from such 
> content, then the list of contributors would need to include all the 
> authors from each and every source document. 

So it's nighmare, ha?
Like said having single license and accepting it, is clearest way, as 
already suggested.

> While both of the websites support change tracking, this concern might 
> be completely irrelevant because none of the documents found on 
> openindiana.org appear to contain visible PDL license declarations or 
> notices. 

Getting through Wiki before going to site is for keeping things together.
But this stands open as topic.

Writing articles should not be the place to catch much glory or 
attention to oneself. Like every contribution, by default, everyone 
contributing is humble and thankful for previous people working on 
things they use or try to make better.