[legal] Copyright status of OpenID Specs text itself

Sat Apr 12 13:43:56 UTC 2008

"Nat Sakimura" <sakimura at gmail.com> writes:

> If that is the case, I am fine with either XMPP license or GFDL without
> cover pages, etc. For the time being, I am asking the translaters to assume
> GFDL, but since there are only 5 or 6 involved yet, I could convert it to
> XMPP as well, though I would have to find a Japanese version of XMPP :-) [I
> am right now using modified GFDL created by Wikimedia foundation.]

Note that I'm not speaking for the copyright holder on these
specification, and I'm not sure it is a good idea to assume GFDL until
there has been any official word about this.  I have asked for the
OpenID specifications to be licensed under a free license before, but
the OpenID Foundation decided to go with the current non-free license.

Note that the GFDL contains the following about using translations of
the license:

  You may include a translation of this License, and all the license
  notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that
  you also include the original English version of this License and the
  original versions of those notices and disclaimers.  In case of a
  disagreement between the translation and the original version of this
  License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will prevail.

In what way has the Wikimedia's GFDL been modified?  The license for the
GFDL license itself does not permit changing the license text, so that
sounds pretty strange to me.

> My only request would be OIDF to add the license statement to the specs etc.
> quickly so that it will be in time for our target finish date for the first
> batch of the translations, which is April 24.

+1

/Simon

> Nat
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>
> wrote:
>
>> "Nat Sakimura" <sakimura at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Yes indeed. I suppose we need to make them freely available. XMPP Style
>> > permission is nice and liberal but I am not sure of the implication when
>> it
>> > is applied to a translation project on wiki, since it looks it is
>> possible
>> > to make a partial translation of it and control it under the
>> translator's
>> > exclusive copyright. In case of GFDL it does not happen, because
>> derivative
>> > work is also covered by GFDL.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the XMPP license requires you to retain the
>> copyright notice and the license in all derivative works, so I don't
>> believe that is a big problem.  Translations could be licensed under
>> some other license, as long as the requirements in the XMPP license are
>> also fulfilled, but I don't see that as a problem.
>>
>> Using the GFDL would be fine by me though.  Just make sure you don't add
>> any invariant sections, or it won't be considered free from Debian's
>> point of view.
>>
>> /Simon
>>
>> > What would you think?
>> >
>> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Brian E. Lewis" <brian.lewis at cordance.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > As I understand it, you are only seeking to translate the specs and
>> >> related
>> >> > documents.  To my mind, this would be a significant benefit, and the
>> >> GFDL
>> >> > would be ideal.  Unfortunately, we did not put that language in the
>> >> > documents.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > We can either see about getting you permission or amending the
>> documents
>> >> to
>> >> > include appropriate GFDL language.
>> >>
>> >> Placing the documents under a free license would be useful, so consider
>> >> this a +1 from me.
>> >>
>> >> If the documents are not freely licensed, they cannot be included as
>> >> documentation in many free software projects.  That would be
>> >> unfortunate.
>> >>
>> >> FYI, compare with the license used by the XMPP Standards Foundation:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml#legal
>> >>
>> >> That license was chosen after discussing with the community about
>> >> licensing.
>> >>
>> >> /Simon
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Brian E. Lewis, General Counsel
>> >> >
>> >> > =bike ( <http://xri.net/=bike> http://xri.net/=bike)
>> >> >
>> >> > Ph. 206.774.9820
>> >> >
>> >> > Cel. 206.910.6574
>> >> >
>> >> > Fax 206.407.3295
>> >> >
>> >> >  <mailto:brian.lewis at cordance.net> brian.lewis at cordance.net
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL WORK PRODUCT. This email message may be protected
>> by
>> >> the
>> >> > attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other
>> >> confidentiality
>> >> > protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do
>> not
>> >> > read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the
>> message
>> >> in
>> >> > error, then delete it. Thank you.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > From: legal-bounces at openid.net [mailto:legal-bounces at openid.net] On
>> >> Behalf
>> >> > Of Nat Sakimura
>> >> > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 3:40 AM
>> >> > To: legal at openid.net
>> >> > Subject: [legal] Copyright status of OpenID Specs text itself
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Hello.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I am running a translation project of OpenID Specs and IPR documents.
>> >> >
>> >> > To work on these document, I wanted to know what is the copyright
>> status
>> >> of
>> >> > those document.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are they GFDL or something?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> >> > http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > legal mailing list
>> >> > legal at openid.net
>> >> > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> > http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/