Clarifying blog post licensing

Clarifying blog post licensing

[Ludovic Courtès]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1868 bytes --]

Hello Guix!

With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
it).

I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
the manual).  Patch below.

What do people think?

If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
terms, or whether they’d like a different free license.  The script
below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
still):

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
$22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
 "Andreas Enge"
 "Chris Marusich"
 "Chris Marusich and Léo Le Bouter"
 "Christopher Baines"
 "Christopher Lemmer Webber"
 "Danjela Lura"
 "Danny Milosavljevic"
 "David Thompson"
 "Efraim Flashner"
 "Florian Pelz"
 "Guix Hackers"
 "Gábor Boskovits"
 "Jakob L. Kreuze"
 "Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen"
 "Jan Nieuwenhuizen"
 "Joshua Branson"
 "Julien Lepiller"
 "Konrad Hinsen"
 "Laura Lazzati"
 "Ludovic (civodul) Courtès"
 "Ludovic Courtès"
 "Ludovic Courtès and Leo Famulari"
 "Magali Lemes"
 "Manolis Ragkousis"
 "Marius (mbakke) Bakke"
 "Marius Bakke"
 "Mathieu Othacehe"
 "Maxim Cournoyer"
 "Pierre Neidhardt"
 "Pjotr Prins"
 "Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
 "Ricardo Wurmus"
 "Roel Janssen"
 "Simon Tournier"
 "Tatiana Sholokhova"
 "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"
 "sirgazil")
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

How does that sound?

Thanks,
Ludo’.


[-- Attachment #2: the script --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

(use-modules (haunt reader commonmark)
             (haunt reader)
             (haunt post)
             (guix build utils)
             (srfi srfi-1))

(define files
  (find-files "posts" "\\.(md|sxml)$"))

(define authors
  (delete-duplicates
   (append-map (lambda (file)
                 (define reader
                   (if (string-suffix? ".md" file)
                       commonmark-reader
                       sxml-reader))

                 (map string-trim-both
                      (string-split (post-ref (read-post reader file) 'author)
                                    #\,)))
               files)))

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1455 bytes --]

diff --git a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
index de02c6c..0d6b08e 100644
--- a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
+++ b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
@@ -60,4 +60,19 @@
 		#:label tag
 		#:url (guix-url (tag-url-path tag)))
 	       " ")) ; NOTE: Force space for readability in non-CSS browsers.
-	    (sort tags tag-first?))))))))
+	    (sort tags tag-first?)))
+
+        (div
+         (@ (class "license"))
+         ,(G_ `(p "Unless otherwise stated, blog posts on this site are
+copyrighted by their respective authors and published under the terms of
+the " ,(G_
+                    `(a (@ (href "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"))
+                        "CC-BY-SA 4.0"))
+                  " license and those of the "
+                  ,(G_
+                    `(a (@ (href
+                            "https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html"))
+                        "GNU Free Documentation License"))
+                  " (version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections, no
+Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts)."))))))))
diff --git a/website/static/blog/css/post.css b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
index 57d7f0d..95035ba 100644
--- a/website/static/blog/css/post.css
+++ b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
@@ -38,3 +38,8 @@ article {
 article.limit-width {
     max-width: 720px;
 }
+
+.license {
+    font-size: 0.8em;
+    line-height: 1.4em;
+}

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Manolis Ragkousis]

I agree!

On 1/26/22 11:24, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello Guix!
> 
> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
> 
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual).  Patch below.
> 
> What do people think?
> 
> If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
> authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
> terms, or whether they’d like a different free license.  The script
> below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
> still):
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
> $22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
>   "Andreas Enge"
>   "Chris Marusich"
>   "Chris Marusich and Léo Le Bouter"
>   "Christopher Baines"
>   "Christopher Lemmer Webber"
>   "Danjela Lura"
>   "Danny Milosavljevic"
>   "David Thompson"
>   "Efraim Flashner"
>   "Florian Pelz"
>   "Guix Hackers"
>   "Gábor Boskovits"
>   "Jakob L. Kreuze"
>   "Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen"
>   "Jan Nieuwenhuizen"
>   "Joshua Branson"
>   "Julien Lepiller"
>   "Konrad Hinsen"
>   "Laura Lazzati"
>   "Ludovic (civodul) Courtès"
>   "Ludovic Courtès"
>   "Ludovic Courtès and Leo Famulari"
>   "Magali Lemes"
>   "Manolis Ragkousis"
>   "Marius (mbakke) Bakke"
>   "Marius Bakke"
>   "Mathieu Othacehe"
>   "Maxim Cournoyer"
>   "Pierre Neidhardt"
>   "Pjotr Prins"
>   "Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
>   "Ricardo Wurmus"
>   "Roel Janssen"
>   "Simon Tournier"
>   "Tatiana Sholokhova"
>   "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"
>   "sirgazil")
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
> index de02c6c..0d6b08e 100644
> --- a/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
> +++ b/website/apps/blog/templates/post.scm
> @@ -60,4 +60,19 @@
>   		#:label tag
>   		#:url (guix-url (tag-url-path tag)))
>   	       " ")) ; NOTE: Force space for readability in non-CSS browsers.
> -	    (sort tags tag-first?))))))))
> +	    (sort tags tag-first?)))
> +
> +        (div
> +         (@ (class "license"))
> +         ,(G_ `(p "Unless otherwise stated, blog posts on this site are
> +copyrighted by their respective authors and published under the terms of
> +the " ,(G_
> +                    `(a (@ (href "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"))
> +                        "CC-BY-SA 4.0"))
> +                  " license and those of the "
> +                  ,(G_
> +                    `(a (@ (href
> +                            "https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html"))
> +                        "GNU Free Documentation License"))
> +                  " (version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections, no
> +Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts)."))))))))
> diff --git a/website/static/blog/css/post.css b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
> index 57d7f0d..95035ba 100644
> --- a/website/static/blog/css/post.css
> +++ b/website/static/blog/css/post.css
> @@ -38,3 +38,8 @@ article {
>   article.limit-width {
>       max-width: 720px;
>   }
> +
> +.license {
> +    font-size: 0.8em;
> +    line-height: 1.4em;
> +}

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello Guix!
> 
> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
> 
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual).  Patch below.
> 
> What do people think?

I agree


-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Julien Lepiller]

On January 26, 2022 10:24:11 AM GMT+01:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>Hello Guix!
>
>With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
>not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
>Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
>it).
>
>I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
>unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
>GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
>the manual).  Patch below.
>
>What do people think?
>
>If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
>authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
>terms, or whether they’d like a different free license.  The script
>below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
>still):
>
>--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
>$22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
> "Andreas Enge"
> "Chris Marusich"
> "Chris Marusich and Léo Le Bouter"
> "Christopher Baines"
> "Christopher Lemmer Webber"
> "Danjela Lura"
> "Danny Milosavljevic"
> "David Thompson"
> "Efraim Flashner"
> "Florian Pelz"
> "Guix Hackers"
> "Gábor Boskovits"
> "Jakob L. Kreuze"
> "Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen"
> "Jan Nieuwenhuizen"
> "Joshua Branson"
> "Julien Lepiller"
> "Konrad Hinsen"
> "Laura Lazzati"
> "Ludovic (civodul) Courtès"
> "Ludovic Courtès"
> "Ludovic Courtès and Leo Famulari"
> "Magali Lemes"
> "Manolis Ragkousis"
> "Marius (mbakke) Bakke"
> "Marius Bakke"
> "Mathieu Othacehe"
> "Maxim Cournoyer"
> "Pierre Neidhardt"
> "Pjotr Prins"
> "Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
> "Ricardo Wurmus"
> "Roel Janssen"
> "Simon Tournier"
> "Tatiana Sholokhova"
> "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"
> "sirgazil")
>--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>How does that sound?
>
>Thanks,
>Ludo’.
>

I agree

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Oliver Propst]

Me too.

-- 
Kinds regards Oliver Propst
https://twitter.com/Opropst

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
>
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual).  Patch below.
>
> What do people think?

Sounds good.

> If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
> authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
> terms, or whether they’d like a different free license.  The script
> below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
> still):
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp authors
> $22 = ("A collective of GNU maintainers"
[…]
>  "Ricardo (rekado) Wurmus"
>  "Ricardo Wurmus"

I agree.

-- 
Ricardo

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello Guix!
>
> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
>
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual).  Patch below.
>
> What do people think?

Sounds good to me.  I'm curious though; why do we need CC-BY-SA,
additionally to GFDL?

Thanks,

Maxim

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 51 bytes --]

> How does that sound?

Excellent.

Thanks!

T G-R

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

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Vagrant Cascadian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1095 bytes --]

On 2022-01-26, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
>
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual).  Patch below.

Just for clarity, do you mean the GFDL with a laundry-list of non-free
anti-features excluded, like the guix manual:

  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
  any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
  Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

Without that, I'm not sure you can actually include it in the guix
manual (other than, perhaps, by using CC-BY-SA 4.0, maybe)...

live well,
  vagrant

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

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

Vagrant Cascadian 写道：
> Just for clarity, do you mean the GFDL with a laundry-list of 
> non-free
> anti-features excluded, like the guix manual:

I think that goes without saying, but clarity is good: thanks for 
bringing it up.

Invariants would be a deal-breaker for several of us I'm sure, 
including myself.

Kind regards,

T G-R

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

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great

Good catch, I agree!

Janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

I agree.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello Guix!
> 
> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
> 
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual).  Patch below.
> 
> What do people think?
> 
> If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
> authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
> terms, or whether they’d like a different free license.  The script
> below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
> still):

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Gábor Boskovits]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1084 bytes --]

I agree.

pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> ezt írta (időpont:
2022. jan. 27., Cs 18:35):

> I agree.
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Hello Guix!
> >
> > With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> > not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> > Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> > it).
> >
> > I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> > unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> > GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> > the manual).  Patch below.
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
> > If maintainers and everyone agrees, I’d like to publicly email all the
> > authors asking them whether they agree with the proposed licensing
> > terms, or whether they’d like a different free license.  The script
> > below enumerates blog post authors (the list needs a bit of cleanup
> > still):
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1455 bytes --]

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[jbranso]

January 27, 2022 12:59 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <janneke@gnu.org> wrote:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
> 
>> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
>> not great
> 

I agree.

Joshua Branson.


> --
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
> Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hello Guix!
>>
>> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
>> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
>> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
>> it).
>>
>> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
>> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
>> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
>> the manual).  Patch below.
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> Sounds good to me.  I'm curious though; why do we need CC-BY-SA,
> additionally to GFDL?

We don’t “need” it, but I think it’s nice to have since it’s used by
many free culture projects out there, starting with Wikipedia.

Ludo’.

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:

> Just for clarity, do you mean the GFDL with a laundry-list of non-free
> anti-features excluded, like the guix manual:
>
>   Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
>   under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
>   any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
>   Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

Yes of course; the patch I proposed explicitly states that:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html

Thanks for asking!

Ludo’.

License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Ludovic Courtès]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

Hello,

I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
<https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.

With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
the blog?

If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
you do not need to reply again).

If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.

The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
for the initial discussion.

Thanks in advance!

Ludo’.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 14:47, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?

I agree.

Cheers,
simon

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Luis Felipe]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 663 bytes --]

On Saturday, February 5th, 2022 at 1:47 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 

> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog.
> 

> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix. We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 

> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?

☑ I agree.

[-- Attachment #1.2: publickey - luis.felipe.la@protonmail.com - 0x12DE1598.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 1815 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 509 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Tatiana Sholokhova]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1290 bytes --]

Hi! I agree.

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022, 08:47 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
>
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
>
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ludo’.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2073 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Mathieu Othacehe]

Hey Ludo,

> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?

I agree.

Thanks,

Mathieu

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 27 bytes --]

Hi Ludo,

I agree.

Pierre

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 511 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Leo Famulari]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
> 
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
> 
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).

I agree.

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Magali Lemes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

Hi,
Em sáb., 5 de fev. de 2022 às 10:47, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
escreveu:

> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
>

I agree.

Magali

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1386 bytes --]

Re: Clarifying blog post licensing

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Hello Guix!
>>>
>>> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
>>> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
>>> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
>>> it).
>>>
>>> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
>>> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
>>> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
>>> the manual).  Patch below.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>
>> Sounds good to me.  I'm curious though; why do we need CC-BY-SA,
>> additionally to GFDL?
>
> We don’t “need” it, but I think it’s nice to have since it’s used by
> many free culture projects out there, starting with Wikipedia.

Thanks for the information.

Maxim

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1502 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
> 
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
> 
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
> 
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
> 
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Ludo’.

I agree

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 624 bytes --]


Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).

I agree.

Thanks,

Chris

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1471 bytes --]

On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 14:47 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are
> the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
> 
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license,
> which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles
> under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant
> Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions
> to
> the blog?
> 
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous
> thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
> 
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
> 
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in
> the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Ludo’.

I agree to dual-license any of my blog posts under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover
Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skriver:

> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?

I agree.

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

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Konrad Hinsen]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?

I agree.

Konrad

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[zerodaysfordays]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU?Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
> 
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
> 
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc?d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
> 
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
> 
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Ludo?.


I agree.

Thank you!

V/r,
Jakob

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Chris Marusich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1396 bytes --]

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
>
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
>
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ludo’.

I agree with the proposed licensing terms mentioned above.

-- 
Chris

PGP: https://savannah.gnu.org/people/viewgpg.php?user_id=106836

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 861 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Christine Lemmer-Webber]

I'm good with it!

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
>
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
>
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ludo’.
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Ludovic Courtès]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]

Hello Andreas, Danjela, Danny, David, Laura, and Roel!

I hope this message finds you well.

If I’m not mistaken, you have not yet replied to my message below, also
visible at
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-02/threads.html>.

Could you take a look?

Replying today is a good way to show your love for free software.  :-)
#ilovefs 💖

Thanks in advance!

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
>
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
>
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ludo’.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Andreas Enge]

Hello all,

Am Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 06:36:16PM +0100 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> I hope this message finds you well.

it does, thanks for the wishes!

> > With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> > we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> > CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> > no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> > Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> > the blog?

I was not even aware that I had written a blog post, these are nice news
from the past! :-)  I am fine with the licenses.

Andreas

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Danjela Lura]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2204 bytes --]

Hello  Ludo,

Apologies for the late reply, but for some unknown reason this message was
in my spams.
I agree with the proposed licensing terms!

I hope everything is going well with Guix. I will graduate this year, so I
look forward to being more active during the summer as I really enjoyed my
Outreachy 2020 internship with the Guix Data Service.

Thank you!
Danjela

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:20 AM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello Andreas, Danjela, Danny, David, Laura, and Roel!
>
> I hope this message finds you well.
>
> If I’m not mistaken, you have not yet replied to my message below, also
> visible at
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-02/threads.html>.
>
> Could you take a look?
>
> Replying today is a good way to show your love for free software.  :-)
> #ilovefs 💖
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ludo’.
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> > author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> > <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
> >
> > With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> > we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> > CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> > no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> >
> > Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> > the blog?
> >
> > If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> > guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> > you do not need to reply again).
> >
> > If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> > questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> > privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
> >
> > The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> > manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> > for the initial discussion.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Ludo’.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3334 bytes --]

License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello Danny, David, Laura, and Roel!

I hope this message finds you well.

If I’m not mistaken, you have not yet replied to my message below, also
visible at
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-02/threads.html>.

Could you take a look?

Thanks in advance!

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
>
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
>
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> for the initial discussion.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ludo’.

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Roel Janssen]

Hi all,

Sorry for the late reply.  I didn't realize I had any say in this matter.

On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 14:47 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
> 
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
> 

I agree.


Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

Please reply: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Ludovic Courtès]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1751 bytes --]

Hello Danny, David, and Laura!

I hope this message finds you well.

If I’m not mistaken, you’re the last people who have not replied to my
message below, also visible at:
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-02/threads.html>.

Could you please take a look and reply ASAP?

Your reply might be as simple as “I agree with CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL
1.3+ dual-licensing for my contributions to the Guix blog.”

Thanks in advance!

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

>> Hello,
>>
>> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
>> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
>> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
>>
>> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
>> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
>> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
>> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>>
>> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
>> the blog?
>>
>> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
>> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
>> you do not need to reply again).
>>
>> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
>> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
>> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
>>
>> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
>> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
>> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
>> for the initial discussion.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Ludo’.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

Re: [EXT] Please reply: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Thompson, David]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2098 bytes --]

Hi,

Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to mailing lists lately.

I agree with CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL 1.3+ dual-licensing for my contributions
to the Guix blog.

- Dave

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 9:56 AM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello Danny, David, and Laura!
>
> I hope this message finds you well.
>
> If I’m not mistaken, you’re the last people who have not replied to my
> message below, also visible at:
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-02/threads.html>.
>
> Could you please take a look and reply ASAP?
>
> Your reply might be as simple as “I agree with CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL
> 1.3+ dual-licensing for my contributions to the Guix blog.”
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ludo’.
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> >> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> >> <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog>.
> >>
> >> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> >> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> >> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> >> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> >>
> >> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> >> the blog?
> >>
> >> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> >> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> >> you do not need to reply again).
> >>
> >> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> >> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> >> privately with guix-maintainers@gnu.org.
> >>
> >> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> >> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> >> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01/msg00389.html>
> >> for the initial discussion.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance!
> >>
> >> Ludo’.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3306 bytes --]