[Grok-dev] Re: license for docs

Martijn Faassen faassen at startifact.com
Sat Jan 26 19:13:37 EST 2008

Kevin Teague wrote:
> I've just removed the GFDL Copyright from the site. (This can be set 
> globally for the /documentation/ section by setting the Copyright field 
> http://grok.zope.org/documentation/edit)


> The ZPL is a software license, how well does it apply to content?

It's not ideal. It's not terrible either, as it's a pretty liberal 
license overall.

> The 
> Zope 3 book and Zope Guide use the Creative Commons license, while the 
> rest of the Zope 3 wiki content is unlicensed:
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopeGuide
> http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/FrontPage/Zope3Book 

> Maybe we should leave the global Documentation license empty? We can 
> then either embed the appropriate license within the content or use the 
> Content Licensing add-on for Plone 
> (http://plone.org/products/contentlicensing) to denote the desired license?

I think leaving out a global documentation license would be best for 
now. That'd just make the text copyrighted without license for reuse. 
Eventually that'd give us some trouble should non-authors want to edit 
or update the text, however. I think a creative commons license might 
make for a reasonable default.

Would the Content Licensing add-on allow an easy way for people to set 
the desired license for the content? Or alternatively, any standard way 
to include license info in a text using ReST?

> If we have a global ZPL content license and someone documents using Grok 
> with non-ZPL'ed parts, such as KSS, Storm, SQLAlchemy, etc. and includes 
> snippets of source code from those projects is that a license conflict?

I'd consider snippets of code fair use. It's actually quite unlikely 
that these snippets would be taken directly from those projects code
bases anyway. I don't see much risk for license conflicts (the ZPL 
doesn't tend to conflict with other licenses much anyway).



More information about the Grok-dev mailing list