[seul-sci] Licenses was [Fwd: Credit where credit is due]

[Robert Hopcroft <hopcroft@qwest.net>]

Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:

> This is the new Free Document License --- applying the GPL to
> non-software proved problematic for certain sections regarding
> modifications; the FDL allows for invarient sections which can be
> annotated but not altered, which makes more sense for free scientific
> and literary information.
>
> Another option is the Open Content License and the Open Publishing
> License from www.opencontent.org --- These were originally conceived
> for protecting datasets and may be even more useful for science. This
> is what we use to govern our public documents and websites.

Thank you for the information. I looked at the GNU web site.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html I noted that they view the

Open Content License as Non-Free and the Open Publication License
as potentially Non-Free. I also noted that they list "Licenses For Works
Besides Software and Documentation". Under this heading is
"The Design Science License
     This is a free and copyleft license meant for general data, not
particularly for software.

     Note, though, that the GNU GPL can be used for general data which is
not software, as long as one can determine what the
     definition of "source code" refers to in the particular case. As it
turns out, the DSL also requires that you determine what the
     "source code" is, using approximately the same definition that the
GPL uses. "

My basic concern is that extensive work could be done only to have it
undone by
a poor choice of licensing. In particular I believe that postings are by
default
copyrighted to the poster. I have seen sugestions that they be collected
into
some sort of documentation. It appears to me that this could be in
violation of
the copyright. I am interested in helping to get things accomplished but
am very
wary of the licensing implications.

Bob