Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Slackersbible

Slackersbible
Uses an incompatible license. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 03:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Why does this need discussion? Isn't it just a copyvio and delete in a week? --Swift (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs discussion because people have been wrong about this sort of thing and made an issue of it. I bring this book here to make it abundantly, unquestionably clear that licenses matter. We cannot mix incompatible licenses, and doing so will result in deletion without question. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Relicense Good catch, darklama. --Swift (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume it's incompatible for text, then. We do have Template:BSD for files, however.  If I understand that correctly, then I support deletion. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any text entered has to be compatible with Wikibooks' CC-SA⁺GFDL licenses. --Swift (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct - images don't need to use a compatible free license - just any free license. This is because mixing text and images does not generate a derivative work. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the requirement to include the disclaimer makes it incompatible, all other requirement would be able to coexist with our licenses . Has the contributor or The FreeBSD Documentation Project been contacted? --Panic (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep but convert the license and keep the copyright attribution. Darklama pointed out that the FSF compatible with the GNU FDL. The issue of our dual licensing doesn't cause any issue since the CC-BY-SA is even more permissive. --Panic (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with assessment of licensing. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think there is a problem if the work was licensed under the BSD license. The BSD license does not require that derived works continue to use the BSD license, thus we could say its now CC-BY-SA+GFDL. The requirement to keep the copyright notice is not really any different from the requirements for the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The disclaimer is not really all that different from Risk disclaimer which books are allowed to use. The issue might be the assumption that the work was BSD licensed. All the work really says is it choices to uses the same license as the FreeBSD Handbook and includes the requirements without actually mentioning a specific license. --dark lama  13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the disclaimer is that it is a requirement of the license terms we can't change the licenses because that makes them incompatible. It would cease to be enforcible. The Risk disclaimer is optional and subjective.
 * Another interesting aspect that you raise it that we can just decide to change the BSD license without really creating a derived work (or that in itself creates one), that is not so, only owners of content can re-license it (not users). This issue caused some fighting on the free software front.  --Panic (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The work did became a derived work when changes were made to it by Wikibooks contributors. The people who contributed changes to the work agreed to re-license the work when they submitted their changes to Wikibooks. The Free Software Foundation seems to think the licenses are compatible. --dark lama  22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are probably correct I haven't verified the changes made (the site sees to be down) and I agree with you on the "BSD license does not require that derived works continue to use the BSD license" if the requirement was only the statement of including the copyrights then there wouldn't be any issue. In any case as you found out the FSF thinks it is compatible so I'm inclined to agree (since the other format requirements they impose, even if not directly covered result in the same). We can keep some form of reference to the license conversion, next to the required attribution. Any one opposed the conversion ? --Panic (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the statement that the copyright must remain intact, but I don't see any statement that the content can be relicensed, on either this book or at the Free BSD license page. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that since the license doesn't make any demands for the continued use of it (or an updated version like the GFDL) any subsequent derivative works can be re-licensed (as Darklama stated above and it has been a common practice on BSD software), respecting the normal requests of attribution since it is not a Copyleft (all rights reserved license). That is why the FSF states it is compatible, and in fact the required text is somewhat duplicated on the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA (without mention of formats but I'll trust the FSF on that).
 * The link I provided above about the conflicts regards direct copy and re-licensing of software, without any change it would be (and people have argued about it) wrong, but we have similar conundrums on the project already. That is why I like to point out that we use the GFDL+Exceptions (and have had a long attrition with Darklama on the subject) but that hasn't prevented us to import GFDL content and impose the limitation of future works, against, at best the expectations of the original author(s), because the GFDL is a powerful copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft. I doubt anyone will make a fuzz about the issue but the bottom line is similar or even more problematic just because the GFDL is copyleft.
 * In this case I have no issues, we are changing a non-copyleft license (that doesn't reserve rights) using (or abusing) the right as creators of a derivative version to re-license it into a compatible license. If your concern is on the moral grounds to do so, I fell your pain but this is how it works and the freeer version hopefully will continue to be available, just not our derived version. --Panic (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Relicense I don't claim to be an expert on licensing, so if everyone else has no problem, go ahead and relicense so that we can keep content and leave the potential for future contributors to add further content. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * reset


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Ok I've proceeded with the relicense, it is done. There were some issues on distinguishing the two works (the source and the Wikibook's project) I think I managed to fix that also. The tone of the Slackersbible/About page could be still worked out, it has to much hyperbole "will prove to be one of the most accurate technical documents on the planet." but I'm not part of that book's community so I'll place a note on the it's talk page... --Panic (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)