haskellfoundation
Fix #505 Reorganise existing GfRC
See:
- #505
This takes the existing content and reorganises it to separate out the Standards of Public Behaviour (which are not specific to the Foundation) from the rest of the content (which puts the Standards in their Foundation context).
The Standards are given an identifiable 'version' (using a bigendian date).
Perhaps the easiest way to review this is to compare side by side:
- the existing published web page: https://haskell.foundation/guidelines-for-respectful-communication/
- with the proposed file, as amended.
On intellectual property (IP) rights, no. Given the acknowledgements, it is possible that this is, in part, a derivative work - but I have not performed a comparison or researched the IP rights associated with what is acknowledged. Given the Foundation's stated intent, my personal assumption is the Foundation would seek to be as permissive as it is able to be, however this specific topic has not been discussed by the board of the Foundation while I have been a member. I can't imagine the Foundation seeking to enforce any copyright it possesses in the Standards of Public Behaviour unless the text was somehow being misused to harm the objectives of the Foundation.
I always thought (but have never investigated it properly) that IP for GfRC belongs to GHC Steering Committee, see https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2018-December/000870.html.
On copyright and licensing, I have added something concrete to facilitate discussion. The addition does not conflict with @Bodigrim's understanding, but perhaps the existing acknowledgements are incomplete. EDIT: I've added a commit to add the GHC Steering Committee's GfRC to the Acknowledgements.
On copyright and licensing, I have added something concrete to facilitate discussion. The addition does not conflict with @Bodigrim's understanding, but perhaps the existing acknowledgements are incomplete. EDIT: I've added a commit to add the GHC Steering Committee's GfRC to the Acknowledgements.
For others following the discusssion: the proposed statement is correct, but does not quite solve the practical issue, because it remains unclear whether copyright holders of original work(s) ever granted a permission to use it even to HF itself, saying nothing about other potential undersignees.
I think it would help if GHC SC a) clarifies to which extent GfRC is their original work (as opposed to derivative in legal meaning), b) grants a permissive license to distribute it. @simonpj @adamgundry is it something you might help with?
I think it would help if GHC SC a) clarifies to which extent GfRC is their original work (as opposed to derivative in legal meaning), b) grants a permissive license to distribute it. @simonpj @adamgundry is it something you might help with?
I guess you are talking about the HF GRC and/or the GHC Steering Committe GRC? They are essentially the same document, although they have diverged slightly. I think I wrote the first draft, explicitly based on earlier work, as the Acknowledgements say.
If it woudl help to have a license, just tell me the wording you would like to see, and I can add it to both, I guess.
Rather than have multiple variants of the same basic thing, I wonder if it might not be more helpful for the HF to make the document a bit more generic., and then we can all just point to it?
@simonpj, that is what this pull request is intended to do: it separates out what is 'generic' from its Haskell Foundation-specific context, enabling other people/bodies to reference the former and put it into their own context.
@simonpj, on copyright and wording, the members of the GHC Steering Committee could do what I did in this pull request to 'push it further back down the chain'. That is, something like:
To the extent that these guidelines for respectful communication are a derivative work (see the acknowledgements), the copyrights and licences of the original works apply. To the extent that the members of the GHC Steering Committee hold any copyright in the work, they release it under CC0 1.0.
I think I wrote the first draft, explicitly based on earlier work, as the Acknowledgements say.
@simonpj Is it "based" as in "vaguely inspired by" or as in "quoting fragments verbatim"? Do we owe them copyright?
@simonpj Is it "based" as in "vaguely inspired by" or as in "quoting fragments verbatim"? Do we owe them copyright?
I have no idea. I wrote it from scratch having read others. I did not copy/paste.
the members of the GHC Steering Committee could do what I did in this pull request to 'push it further back down the chain'.
but if we simply point to the HF GRC instead, we'll get whateer the HF GRC does automatically. Nothing to decide -- great!