[Harmony-Drafting] Licensing for website content and agreements

Amanda Brock amanda.brock at canonical.com
Tue Jun 7 10:34:31 UTC 2011


I am against a licence for the licence and would follow the approach 
suggested by Allison re GPL.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Amanda

Amanda Brock, General Counsel
Canonical
27 Floor, Millbank Tower
London SW1P 4QP
+44 2076302446
+44 7809389878
Ubuntu - Linux for Human Beings
www.canonical.com


On 06/06/11 21:40, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 12:29 PM, consiliens wrote:
>> I thought the agreements were using CC BY?  After reading your response
>> it seems I'm mistaken and the harmony agreements are released under a
>> custom license.
> The proposal in this thread was:
>
> ------
> Except where otherwise noted, all content on this site is licensed under
> a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Everyone is permitted to
> copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Harmony contributor
> agreements. Modified versions of the agreements, however, should not be
> called "Harmony" agreements.
> ------
>
> So, the website content as CC-BY, but the agreements themselves as
> "distribute verbatim is fine, change the name if you modify them". CC-BY
> seems like massive over-engineering for the agreements. Look at GPL for
> their simple terms for the license itself "distribute verbatim is fine,
> no changes allowed". Apache doesn't even bother with specifying terms
> for their license or contributor agreement, and neither do many others.
>
> But, if the group generally wants a license for the license, CC-BY does
> seem like a close fit to what we've talked about. Perhaps we could make
> the second sentence just clarification, as "This means that everyone is
> permitted to copy and distribute..."
>
> Allison
> _______________________________________________
> Harmony-Drafting mailing list
> Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting


More information about the Harmony-Drafting mailing list