[TAG] License Question

[Jimmy O'Regan]

2008/9/21 Martin <martin at marcher.name>:
> Hello,
>
> according to your author FAQ[0] under "Copyright Issues" you state
> that you will publish the works sent to you under the Open Publication
> License.

By default; the author may choose a different licence if he/she so
pleases (and the editor in chief may reject the article if that
licence is horrible enough).

> The Wikipedia article states that the author of the OPL
> recommends using a Createive Commons License as a replacement. I
> understand that there are issues with the existing articles which may
> prevent relicencing them but for new articles would it be OK if I'd
> like to articles to be published under a Creative Commons License -

Any articles you submit may be published under the licence of your
choice, subject to the editor's approval, of course.

> personally I prefer "by-nc-sa" for written works

I think anything with 'Non-commercial' terms is horrible, and IMO
contrary to LG's goals.

> and "by-sa" for code
> works.
>

Well that's a complete and utter failure of an idea. It's *Linux*
Gazette - if you want to share code in the Linux community, the best
way to do so is using the GPL.

> Given that efforts to keep the OPL updated seem to have stopped
> (actually never made it beyond a version 1.0) at 1999-07-08 I think
> switching to a CC license should be considered, maybe even let authors
> choose between
>
>  * default (stay with OPL)
>  * the CC options
>

We've already had that discussion, a few years ago, and the consensus
was to stay with the OPL.

> any thoughts on that?
> http://www.xing.com/profile/Martin_Marcher
>
> You are not free to read this message,
> by doing so, you have violated my licence
> and are required to urinate publicly. Thank you.

^ I'd prefer this to cc-n[cd]-*