Hey folks!

I am currently writing a few technical specifications which I intend to
host on my blog/website. For instance, I am working on a specification
for an http based api for power supplies [1]. I am currently wondering
what's the appropriate license for this. For my code I will just use
GPL. But for the document? These guys come to my mind:

* MIT
* Apache
* Creative Commons
* Public Domain
* GNU FDL

In the long run I would be happy if I see (probably not, but who
knows?) a device on the market using my API some day. But I am lost
which license I should choose for the document… Any ideas?

Stefan

[1]: https://rumpelsepp.org/specs/netzteil-http.7.html

On Wed May 20, 2020 at 7:01 AM UTC, Stefan Tatschner wrote:
> Hey folks!

Hey! Nice to see action on this list again

> * Creative Commons

I would always go for CC if you are in control of what licence you give it

Of course, not all CC attributions are equal, so specifically I would say
CC BY-SA 4.0 specifically should be used, which allows people to use and
remix your doc how they want, even commercially.

If you have a problem with people reusing your work, then obviously do not
choose that one, and look at something more prescriptive...

Good luck!

~ols

--
https://ols.wtf | oliver@leaversmith.com

Hey!

Thanks for your answer!

On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 05:20 +0000, Oliver Leaver-Smith wrote:
> Of course, not all CC attributions are equal, so specifically I would
> say
> 
> CC BY-SA 4.0 specifically should be used, which allows people to use
> and remix your doc how they want, even commercially.

This sounds like exactly what I want for my stuff. I thought that CC
licenses are mainly for artists (pictures, drawings, videos, …). I read
that also wikipedia has adopted a CC license for its articles.

How do I apply the CC licenses correctly? Just mention it in the file
itself? It seems not to be that straightforward as applying GPL is (just
drop the license file in the root folder and your done).

Stefan

I am not a lawyer so everything below is just from my understanding and
experience.

On Wed May 20, 2020 at 1:20 AM EDT, Oliver Leaver-Smith wrote:
> On Wed May 20, 2020 at 7:01 AM UTC, Stefan Tatschner wrote:
> > * Creative Commons
>
> I would always go for CC if you are in control of what licence you give it
>
> Of course, not all CC attributions are equal, so specifically I would say
> CC BY-SA 4.0 specifically should be used, which allows people to use and
> remix your doc how they want, even commercially.

I second this recommendation. I've used the CC BY-SA 4.0 for everything
that I create that isn't source code and it's served me well. The
conditions are compatible with free software licenses and it's a very
easy to understand license.

> > * MIT

The MIT license would be more permissive than the CC BY-SA, it's
basically one step removed from being Public Domain.

> > * Public Domain

Public Domain may mean something different depending on the
jurisdiction. For that reason, it's commonly recommended to be specific
about which conditions you wish to impose. Instead of licensing your
work by saying "this is in the public domain", it would be better to use
the CC0 license which is very explicit about what the conditions are.

> > * GNU FDL

Note that there has been significant, fair criticism[1] against the GNU
FDL. I would personally not recommend it for that reason but it's
ultimately up to what kind of conditions you want.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism

--
Jake Bauer <jbauer@paritybit.ca>

The docs for .NET use the CC license[1]. You could mirror how they do it.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/docs/blob/master/LICENSE

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:55 PM Jake Bauer <jbauer@paritybit.ca> wrote:
>
> I am not a lawyer so everything below is just from my understanding and
> experience.
>
> On Wed May 20, 2020 at 1:20 AM EDT, Oliver Leaver-Smith wrote:
> > On Wed May 20, 2020 at 7:01 AM UTC, Stefan Tatschner wrote:
> > > * Creative Commons
> >
> > I would always go for CC if you are in control of what licence you give it
> >
> > Of course, not all CC attributions are equal, so specifically I would say
> > CC BY-SA 4.0 specifically should be used, which allows people to use and
> > remix your doc how they want, even commercially.
>
> I second this recommendation. I've used the CC BY-SA 4.0 for everything
> that I create that isn't source code and it's served me well. The
> conditions are compatible with free software licenses and it's a very
> easy to understand license.
>
> > > * MIT
>
> The MIT license would be more permissive than the CC BY-SA, it's
> basically one step removed from being Public Domain.
>
> > > * Public Domain
>
> Public Domain may mean something different depending on the
> jurisdiction. For that reason, it's commonly recommended to be specific
> about which conditions you wish to impose. Instead of licensing your
> work by saying "this is in the public domain", it would be better to use
> the CC0 license which is very explicit about what the conditions are.
>
> > > * GNU FDL
>
> Note that there has been significant, fair criticism[1] against the GNU
> FDL. I would personally not recommend it for that reason but it's
> ultimately up to what kind of conditions you want.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism
>
> --
> Jake Bauer <jbauer@paritybit.ca>

On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 23:09 -0700, Jeremy Jung wrote:
> The docs for .NET use the CC license[1]. You could mirror how they do
> it.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/dotnet/docs/blob/master/LICENSE

Thanks folks for the help. I think it is sane to go with the cc licenses.
For the record, I found out were they host the plaintext versions of the
license text:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

Append .txt and it pops up. :)

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.txt

It is obvious, but they don't seem to provide a link for it which
is easy to find.

Stefan

GNU FDL or CC would be the ones to choose since a specification is a
technical document and not code

Typically the license for technical documents like this are either
mentioned in the front matter (check any book; the copyright details
are in the first five pages) or in the footer (check many wikis; they
mention the CC clause at the bottom.)

Depending on how serious things are one might also trademark the spec
name. While the spec itself might be CC-BY-SA which allows anyone to
modify and republish the (attributed) changed version, not having a
trademark means they can just call the modified version the same
thing. Mozilla is one such place that uses this scheme (you can make a
fork, but you cannot call the fork Firefox.)

Beware the NC sub-clause can be ambiguous. Lawyers will have a field
day about whether implementing the spec counts as commercial usage or
only specifically reselling the specification page. There are heated
lawsuits as to whether an API can even be copyright in the first
place.