License and copyright of specification items

[Gedare Bloom]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 7:15 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:10 AM Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
>> On 22/11/2019 14:51, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> >     So, my proposal is to add two
>> >     attributes to every specification item:
>> >
>> >     1.
>> >
>> >     license: 'SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause OR CC-BY-SA-4.0'
>> >
>> >     This allows the use of content from specification items as source
>> code
>> >     and documentation input.
>> >
>> >     2.
>> >
>> >     copyrights:
>> >     - 'Copyright (C) 2019 John Doe'
>> >
>> >
>> > I think I am OK with this as long as we only accept requirements with
>> > a single license type. We just need to pick a license. If we go to
>> > BSD-2-Clause,
>> > then we don't have to give credit in generated documents.
>> >
>> > For CC-BY-SA, I believe any generated document would have to give
>> > credit to every entity with a copyright listed.
>> >
>> > If everyone agrees that is the primary practical difference between the
>> > two licenses, I would prefer we require all to be BSD-2-Clause.
>> >
>> > But I am happy with the license and copyright being attributes
>> > that are generally treated as comments.
>>
>> I would like to generate the API documentation (e.g. the stuff in the
>> "Directive" sections) in the RTEMS Classic API Guide from specification
>> items. During this process documentation content will move from
>> documentation *.rst files (CC-BY-SA license) to *.yml files in the RTEMS
>> sources repository.  The content will flow back to the RTEMS
>> documentation repository to *.rst files with the help of a generator
>> program. The API header files with Doxygen markup can also be generated.
>> This is why I would like to dual-license the *.yml files.
>>
>
> Wouldn't the BSD-2-Clause then be sufficient to do all that?
>
>
>>
>> This would be a re-licensing of parts of the documentation.
>>
>> If we solely use the BSD-2-Clause license, then we need a BSD-2-Clause
>> copyright information in the documents.
>>
>
> Your right. I must not be awake this morning. They are basically
> equivalent.
>

I think we had this discussion before. The stock bsd licenses aren't so
clear on how they protect documentation. CC are better in such cases, so
providing the dual license makes it easier to use code in either doco or
compiled.


> --joel
>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
>>
>> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
>> Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
>> Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
>> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>> PGP     : Public key available on request.
>>
>> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20191123/0878a2f8/attachment.html>