Re: Licensing in-product help articles on sumo

A few nits to pick:

David Tenser wrote:
> I asked the very same question last week, and this is mconnor's response:
> 
> "MPL tri-license by definition.  Good point, since CC-by-SA 3.0 is also 
> incompatible with our code licenses (which is why we don't use them for 
> MDC etc).  

To be precise, MDC uses CC-BY-SA 2.5 or later for all the text content, 
and the MIT license for code.

> We probably should do some outreach to get people to agree. 
> Probably can do a bit of bonsai scripting to get the list of individuals 
> who've committed content.  

That won't solve the problem completely, because often person B checks 
in person A's patch. You have to look in Bugzilla and checkin comments 
too, at the least.

Relicensing is time-consuming and messy. What advantage do we get from 
doing it? If we are going to relicense, please ask for CC-BY-SA 3.0 
_or_later_ rather than just 3.0. Makes things much more future-proof.

> In the meantime, anything without relicensing 
> permission should be labeled as trilicense for now.  (FSF's copyright 
> assignment makes this stuff so much easier.)  

True, but it discourages contributions to an unknown but almost 
certainly non-zero extent.

> Anything contributed by 
> moco employees can be relicened in whatever way we see fit, since MoCo 
> owns the copyright."

If I remember correctly, MoFo actually owns the copyrights to MoCo work. 
But the consequences are the same :-)

Gerv