According to PoP and CCA, documents are licensed under free and open conditions. This is only fair, as you created them!
It is an open discussion point as to which licence to use (or to vary). Here are some alternatives. Please discuss.
Alternative 1. The FreeDocumentLicence from FSF.
Points:
proposed to board but not accepted 20080114.3 in EmailBoardDecisionsUpdateFeb2008
- This licence is currently being rewritten by FSF.
- Thought to be too complex to understand.
Alternative 2. Creative Commons Attribute-Share-alike.
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.
Points:
- This licence achieves a similar effect as "GPL" etc in that others may use it, but if they distribute, they have to re-licence under the compatible clause.
- CC is much more modern than FDL.
- Creative Commons licences on the whole are complex because there is one for every jurisdiction and one for every purpose.
- As one legal wit said, "using a Creative Commons licence is like using law. which one?"
- new cc v3 is intended to be "unified" or "compatible" across jurisdictions
- Once chosen, it is relatively easy to understand.
- new cc v3 adopts "plain english" approach so is even easier.
- CC also has lots of nice graphics for explanation.
- (appearance of the by-sa symbol is for explanation, not an indication that the licence applies to this page!)
- Lots of "link" support etc.
If Obama can do this, so can CAcert
Modification 1.
In order to bring it a bit closer to home and reduce our risks and costs, we could:
Addition of 8.g |
8.g You agree that all disputes arising out of in connection with this document or any other aspect of CAcert's services shall be referred to and finally resolved by Arbitration under the Dispute Resolution Policy of CAcert (DRP => COD7). |
Modify 8.e |
"entire agreement" is deemed to incorporate the above addition of 8.g |
(Above written with CC in mind, but principle is same for FDL or other licences.)
Modification 2.
According to the CCau project, the v3.0 licence series are about to be released, and these primarily have the advantage of easier english. It is probably reasonable to include 3.0 and to deprecate 2.5.
Modification 3.
It is possible to issue our CAcert documents under as many licences as we please. E.g., they could be issued under both FDL and CCau3.
If so, it would be nice if both were deemed compatible, so that people who chose one could also cut&paste from documents that are chosen in the other. Especially, if Mod 1. above were in place, it could be so stated. Whether this makes sense would depend on the text of the licences... Further research required.
Ownership
To the extent legally possible, CAcert Inc claims the full ownership and control rights to all its documentation. This is because the audit criteria for control really do want to see control. In the event that you think you cannot pass your full control rights across to CAcert, then don't do it. Someone else will write it.
For some countries (France, etc) it is often pointed out that all rights cannot be transferred. See above. All control is required, because the CA must be able to operate without interference. So to the extent that any important rights cannot be passed by you to CAcert, your writings cannot be used for CAcert. Where so identified, they will have to be replaced by others.