Will they be reasonable? Like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike terms which govern SQLA 1.0 (this site): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Or will they be obscene? Like the Terms and Conditions that governed the now-defunct CodeXchange: http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=1059158
Obscene terms might not kill SQLA 2.0 but they certainly will kill my participation... no code from me, quite possibly nothing at all.
That's not a threat, that's a simple statement of fact my lawyer insists I make.
Here is our plan for the terms and conditions of the "Sybase, An SAP Company" hosted SQL Anywhere question and answer site (commonly referred to as SQLA 2.0):
Let me start by saying that we are NOT going to use the old CodeExchange agreement.
For new content, we have 3 options:
1) write a new agreement This option will guarantee that we will have forgotten what we were doing by the time we get the site up and running, as it will take forever. Writing a new agreement takes even longer than getting a new machine visible outside the firewall. :-)
3) use an existing agreement It turns out that the SAP Community Network has an agreement that seems pretty good in terms of covering all the requirements. You own what you post, and can do with it what you will. You can only post what you own. SAP has free rights to use the content. You agree to basic polite behavior. You agree that there are no guarantees on the code, and you won't sue SAP if it doesn't work.
Our plan is to use this agreement for all new content.
Existing content in this current SQLA site is licensed under under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License (per the SQLA FAQ).
When current content is loaded into the SQLA 2.0 site, it will be marked using a new content attribute that will indicate that it is "SQLA 1.0 Content", and it will continue to be subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
I've been involved in open source and open standards for decades, though I'm pretty new to this site. But from what I've seen, it seems that there is a plan to move from the StackExchange model of closed source code to open source code for the web service. I think openness is empowering so that makes sense, assuming the new code base has enough backing and traction to succeed.
But that seems to be accompanied here by a shift from a great open creative commons sharealike license for the content to this SAP Community Network license which would basically lock the site up for the only folks that have rights to all the content: SAP. That makes it essentially impossible for you or anyone but SAP to once again fork the content as a whole elsewhere if the folks that run SQLA 2.0 end up doing stuff the community doesn't like.
Why would you do that? Preserving openness for the content licensing seems much more important than getting openness for the software.
answered 18 Dec '10, 04:09