Commit graph

17 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Bradley M. Kuhn
3c0b95de14 Wordsmith paragraph. 2014-03-20 21:17:07 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
595c64c158 Wordsmith paragraph. 2014-03-20 21:14:20 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
ff37b833de Wordsmith this paragraph 2014-03-20 21:14:12 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
b03ca7f6d5 Wordsmith paragraph 2014-03-20 21:08:50 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
312e3f7e92 Correct paragraph. 2014-03-20 21:07:31 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
2df193b0e9 Wordsmith paragraph and correct for accuracy. 2014-03-20 21:06:48 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
769dfdbd14 Wordsmith two paragraphs. 2014-03-20 21:04:31 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
634c64727e Wordsmith this paragraph. 2014-03-20 21:02:16 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
f3caa4bf6b More fine-tuned changes to s/Open Source/Free Software/g.
While I liked Donald's changes in the previous commit enough to take them,
and I don't agree with SFLC's (who was the last to edit those words in this
document) preference for "FOSS", I did want to make some fine tuned changes
that I think are appropriate:

  * say "software freedom" rather than "Free Software" anywhere it fits the
    sentence.

  * Capitalize "Free Software" like that, rather than lower case as Donald's
    change did.

  * Say "copylefted" in a few places where that was the stronger implication.

  * Say "Open Source" in two specific places where the intention is to
    include OSI-approved licenses that may not be Free Software licenses.
2014-03-20 16:08:59 -04:00
Donald Robertson, III
957fff699c FLOSS to free software 2014-03-20 16:02:03 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
ee9e86642a Properly update and format copyright notices and title pages. 2014-03-20 09:59:16 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
fcec57fe6d Move this text to the compliance guide, which is really where it belongs. 2014-03-18 18:26:14 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
2bafeda59e Relicensing is different. Note to that issue on the compliance guide. 2014-03-18 18:25:01 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
3158f32e47 Introductory discussion of GPLv2 for this section that introduces it. 2014-03-16 16:21:17 -04:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
7ad226003d Create and update copyright notice and licensing information. 2014-02-20 13:37:39 -05:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
9eb3c521b0 Incorporate the compliance guide into main text of the book.
This required resectioning the entire compliance guide to be 'one level up'.
It furthermore required a few other formatting and related changes.
2014-02-20 12:46:33 -05:00
Bradley M. Kuhn
4aeb4b25b2 compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex

Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).

I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported.  (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)

Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:

  Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center.  Licensed
  \href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
  3.0 unported}.

Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):

  §4(b)(I):   Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
              the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
              repository as well.

  §4(b)(II):  No additional conditions are imposed.

  §4(b)(III): This term is confusing.  It claims I must "keep intact all
              notices that refer to the Applicable License".  Of course, the
              Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
              seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
              almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
              the 4.0 license.  However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
              this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
              of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
              new license.

  §4(b)(IV):  No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 18:24:15 -05:00