OASIS DocBook TC2

Hi Jan, I'm forwarding this to the DocBook TC. I don't know the answer to your question, but there are people on the TC who probably do know. Best regards, Richard Hamilton ------- XML Press XML for Technical Communicators http://xmlpress.net hamilton@xmlpress.net Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jan Tosovsky" <j.tosovsky@email.cz> > Subject: [docbook-apps] [OT] DocBook XSL license > Date: March 12, 2016 at 4:13:49 PST > To: "'Docbook apps List'" <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Dear All, > > I am implementing stylesheets for DocBook conversion into special format > which I'd like to publish on GitHub. I am reusing the code from DocBook XSL > distribution - from /common and /lib. > > I plan to distribute it under a common license, most likely GPL v3. > > I'd like to verify if this license is compatible with that found in DocBook > XSL distribution: > > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/COPYING or alternatively > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/copyright.html > > What do you think? > > Btw, do you happen plan changing this license to something more common? :-) > > Thanks, > > Jan > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org >

Hi Jan,

The DocBook TC met today, and after the official meeting concluded, we discussed your request. Norm Walsh told us that the current license uses the same wording as the MIT license, except that we added provisions concerning attribution of code and didn't identify the license as coming from the MIT license.

No one on the call is a lawyer, but we didn't see any objections to someone distributing customizations that carried another license as long as the existing material carries the current license.

We agreed to change the license file to identify the license as the MIT license, then separately note the additional restriction concerning the use of the names of the copyright holders.

I hope that helps.

FYI, I'm cross posting this to the DocBook Apps group because that's were it initiated.

Best regards,
Richard
-------
XML Press
XML for Technical Communicators
http://xmlpress.net
hamilton@xmlpress.net



On Mar 13, 2016, at 15:37, Richard Hamilton <hamilton@xmlpress.net> wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> I'm forwarding this to the DocBook TC. I don't know the answer to your question, but there are people on the TC who probably do know.
>
> Best regards,
> Richard Hamilton
> -------
> XML Press
> XML for Technical Communicators
> http://xmlpress.net
> hamilton@xmlpress.net
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Jan Tosovsky" <j.tosovsky@email.cz>
>> Subject: [docbook-apps] [OT] DocBook XSL license
>> Date: March 12, 2016 at 4:13:49 PST
>> To: "'Docbook apps List'" <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am implementing stylesheets for DocBook conversion into special format
>> which I'd like to publish on GitHub. I am reusing the code from DocBook XSL
>> distribution - from /common and /lib.
>>
>> I plan to distribute it under a common license, most likely GPL v3.
>>
>> I'd like to verify if this license is compatible with that found in DocBook
>> XSL distribution:
>>
>> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/COPYING or alternatively
>> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/copyright.html
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Btw, do you happen plan changing this license to something more common? :-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>>
>

Hi Jan, The DocBook TC met today, and after the official meeting concluded, we discussed your request. Norm Walsh told us that the current license uses the same wording as the MIT license, except that we added provisions concerning attribution of code and didn't identify the license as coming from the MIT license. No one on the call is a lawyer, but we didn't see any objections to someone distributing customizations that carried another license as long as the existing material carries the current license. We agreed to change the license file to identify the license as the MIT license, then separately note the additional restriction concerning the use of the names of the copyright holders. I hope that helps. FYI, I'm cross posting this to the DocBook Apps group because that's were it initiated. Best regards, Richard ------- XML Press XML for Technical Communicators http://xmlpress.net hamilton@xmlpress.net On Mar 13, 2016, at 15:37, Richard Hamilton <hamilton@xmlpress.net> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > I'm forwarding this to the DocBook TC. I don't know the answer to your question, but there are people on the TC who probably do know. > > Best regards, > Richard Hamilton > ------- > XML Press > XML for Technical Communicators > http://xmlpress.net > hamilton@xmlpress.net > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Jan Tosovsky" <j.tosovsky@email.cz> >> Subject: [docbook-apps] [OT] DocBook XSL license >> Date: March 12, 2016 at 4:13:49 PST >> To: "'Docbook apps List'" <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I am implementing stylesheets for DocBook conversion into special format >> which I'd like to publish on GitHub. I am reusing the code from DocBook XSL >> distribution - from /common and /lib. >> >> I plan to distribute it under a common license, most likely GPL v3. >> >> I'd like to verify if this license is compatible with that found in DocBook >> XSL distribution: >> >> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/COPYING or alternatively >> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/copyright.html >> >> What do you think? >> >> Btw, do you happen plan changing this license to something more common? :-) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jan >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org >> >

Dear Richard,

On 2016-03-16 Richard Hamilton wrote:
> On 2016-03-12 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >
> > I am implementing stylesheets for DocBook conversion into special
> > format which I'd like to publish on GitHub. I am reusing the code
> > from DocBook XSL distribution - from /common and /lib.
> >
> > I plan to distribute it under a common license, most likely GPL v3.
> > I'd like to verify if this license is compatible with that found in
> > DocBook XSL distribution
>
> We agreed to change the license file to identify the license as the MIT
> license, then separately note the additional restriction concerning the
> use of the names of the copyright holders.
>

thanks for moving this further.

I am just worried mentioning MIT with those additional restrictions might
cause more confusions than today. Seeing MIT one expects something. I would
rephrase [1] - If You Change MIT, It's Not MIT Anymore ;-)

While it is completely up to the author, I'd either switch to common license
without extra claims, or use specific one as currently.

Anyway, I changed my mind and for my purpose I'll use the same license as
that used in DocBook XSL distribution. I'll sync the former if the latter
changes in any way.

Jan

_________
[1] http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/docbook/book/ch05.html