What's the license of Guix's blog?

What's the license of Guix's blog?

[Zhu Zihao]

I want to translate some of Guix's blog into another language, but I don't know what license the articles in Guix'blog using, are they using GNU FDL?


Guix's blog: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/

--
Zihao

Re: What's the license of Guix's blog?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1539 bytes --]

"Zhu Zihao" <all_but_last@163.com> wrote:
> I want to translate some of Guix's blog into another language, but I don't know what license the articles in Guix'blog using

A good question!

> are they using GNU FDL?

The repo containing blog posts is, as youʼve already found, is guix/guix-artwork [1].  Its README says:

| * Copying
|
| ** Guile code
|
| See [[file:COPYING][COPYING]].
|
| ** Graphics
|
| Public domain 2015 Luis Felipe López Acevedo
|
| All the graphics in this directory are dedicated to the public domain, except
| for the Guix System Distribution logo, which can be used under the Creative
| Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
|
| You can find information about authors and copyright in the metadata of SVG
| files. If you are using Inkscape, you can access the Document metadata from
| the File menu.

That is, textual works are not licensed.  Specific files under website/posts/ does not feature any licence either.

In other words, nothing suggests that they are covered by GNU FDL, nor that they are free at all.

There is nothing good in absence of explicit licence, since in that way they are not even legally redistributable, but _freeing_ them actually would _not_ be in line with the usual https://www.gnu.org policy, where CC BY-ND is used, and all translations are supposed to be done via official translation teams [2].

[1] https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix/guix-artwork.git
[2] https://www.gnu.org/server/standards/README.translations.html#teams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

Re: What's the license of Guix's blog?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

"Zhu Zihao" <all_but_last@163.com> skribis:

> I want to translate some of Guix's blog into another language, but I don't know what license the articles in Guix'blog using, are they using GNU FDL?

Translations would be welcome!

Most articles do not have an explicit license.  However, I believe most
authors are still around and we should be able to agree on a default
license for all the articles.  We can add a note at the bottom of the
web page of each article stating that, unless otherwise stated, the
document is available under the agreed-upon license.

I would propose GFDLv1.3+ without invariant sections, since that can
then be relicensed to CC-BY-SA should anyone need it.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

Re: What's the license of Guix's blog?

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 240 bytes --]

Ludovic Courtès 写道：
> I would propose GFDLv1.3+ without invariant sections, since that 
> can
> then be relicensed to CC-BY-SA should anyone need it.
>
> Thoughts?

I think that it's a great choice.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: What's the license of Guix's blog?

[Amin Bandali]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1194 bytes --]

Hi Ludo’, all,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
[...]
> I would propose GFDLv1.3+ without invariant sections, since that can
> then be relicensed to CC-BY-SA should anyone need it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ludo’.

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but reading the text for
GFDLv1.3 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html>, specifically
"11. RELICENSING", it seems to me that the explicit permission to
relicense GFDLv1.3-covered work to CC BY-SA 3.0 was only valid until
August 1, 2009.  Thus, I would suggest explicitly asking the FSF or
seeking legal advice about that, to know whether that section still
applies today.

Another good candidate is CC BY-SA 4.0, which was declared one-way
compatible with GPLv3
<https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3>;
but it does have its own gotchas
<https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3#Option_to_comply_with_later_versions>.
I have also seen folks license material on their site under GPLv3+.
I currently do that for the material on my personal site.

That's my 2¢; hope it helps.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 857 bytes --]

Re: What's the license of Guix's blog?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

Amin Bandali <bandali@gnu.org> wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>> I would propose GFDLv1.3+ without invariant sections, since that can then be relicensed to CC-BY-SA should anyone need it.
>
> but reading the text for GFDLv1.3, specifically "11. RELICENSING", it seems to me that the explicit permission to relicense GFDLv1.3-covered work to CC BY-SA 3.0 was only valid until August 1, 2009.

And it had been never valid for any blog, only for a ‘wiki’.

> I would suggest explicitly asking the FSF or seeking legal advice about that, to know whether that section still applies today.

If one finds the licence itself unclear, there is also a FAQ [1].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html

> Another good candidate is CC BY-SA 4.0, which was declared one-way compatible with GPLv3...

...yet not with FDL (which Guix manual is under).

> I have also seen folks license material on their site under GPLv3+.

And neither licence is mutually exclusive with the other one!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]