Page MenuHome

Manual: New License
ClosedPublic

Authored by Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) on Apr 24 2016, 4:41 PM.

Details

Summary

Removes the CC0 mark and replaces it by the CC-BY-SA

The new file is added to the about section.
The license notice in the HTML footer is changed.

Demo: http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/about/license.html

Diff Detail

Repository
rBM Blender Manual

Event Timeline

Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) retitled this revision from to Manual: License status quo.Apr 24 2016, 4:41 PM
Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) updated this object.
Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) set the repository for this revision to rBM Blender Manual.
Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) updated this revision to Diff 6513.

Should the Blender Institute be represented as a publisher?
Or a note about the word "Blender" as a trademark?

The original copyrights are Blender Foundation. Sometimes it's useful to mention, but not in the general license text. That Blender is a trademark we can leave out of this text too.

OPL is very close to CC-BY-SA. I need time to study how to handle this...

I don't wanted to urge you, I'm very glad, that I don't have to do it.

I think, that the Sphinx manual is an new product on its own and
currently it's under CC0, because it never stated else in itself.

@Thomas Dinges (dingto):
If I understood it right then the manual never meant to be under CC0.
This would be a temporary step back to the old OCL license of the wiki.

My plan is to change to a CC-BY or +SA in the future.

The old license has a copyleft component. So it's closer to CC-BY-SA than CC-BY. It's not 100% compatible though. CC-BY-SA is a bit stricter.

Here's a decision I would support:

  • Convert all OCL content to CC-BY-SA in the new manual
  • Add a license page in the manual that tells that we migrated old OCL content to CC-BY-SA. Tell that the original content is still OCL (link to download or read), and that the new CC-BY-SA is nearly identical and also copyleft. Add foundation@blender.org email address for people to send questions to if they have.

For new content advise to use CC-BY-SA, or CC0. At choice of the authors. I slightly lean towards CC0 (for re-use), but many authors might like "share alike' better.

Ok, CC-BY-SA it is, I'm going to update this diff.

This comment was removed by Aaron Carlisle (Blendify).
Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) retitled this revision from Manual: License status quo to Manual: New License.Jun 9 2016, 9:34 PM
Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) updated this object.
Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) edited edge metadata.
Tobias Heinke (TobiasH) updated this revision to Diff 6881.

A plagiarism of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/MDN/About#Copyrights_and_licenses

citation: whole manual or per side.
email: no subject and no contact person
previous: Blender versions 2.4 - 2.77 or year 2004 - 2016

Is v2.4 correct and are there licenses in between need to be mentioned?

Blender Artistic is not listed.

This comment was removed by Tobias Heinke (TobiasH).
manual/about/license.rst
27–29

Move to code block?

I tried already, but it has to be parsed:
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/directives.html#parsed-literal-block

in the theme: monospaced font in a full line wide box (gray border, white background)

Don't if know if it's worth a CSS rule (besides the font, probably font size and spacing has to be solved).
The use of a existing rule set doesn't solves the spacing issues.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.