Re: wiki license (www license...)
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Franklin PIAT <fpiat@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have read your blog about the wiki[1] with interest, and I have some
> comments and questions.
>
> Joey Hess wrote:
>> I doubt that trying to get the whole wiki licensed under a specific
>> license is a good use of time.
>
> My intend is to have a default license, and to get it applied to
> existing content that have unclear license.
> BTW, I don't think we should have a single license for the wiki : some
> specific pages, like DebianReferences, could have a specific license.
>
> Can you clarify "good use of time" ?
>
>
>> Since the wiki is not a package that we ship, but is instead a ad-hoc
>> collection of many documents, and many conversations, I also don't see
>> the point of a single consistent license, or any reason to be bothered
>> by content whose license is not specified.
>
> Actually, I have on my plan to create a debian package with a (partial)
> copy of the wiki, so offline users can access read it on the CD.
This could be done with a printing option and have the file as html
http://wiki.debian.org/SystemPrinting?action=print
Is there a specific section you would want to get off line? Filetype?
>
> Also, I consider that the content of most pages should be moved to
> official documentations regularly (package documentation, README.Debian,
> www.debian.org.etc...).
How would this work?
>
> Finally I wish it were possible to share|fork|patch documentations,
> including wiki pages, among distributions, with something like git+wml
> (I'll post about this soon).
>
>> Be very wary of anything that makes contributing to the wiki require
>> jumping through more legal hoops than it takes to contribute to
>> lists.debian.org or bugs.debian.org. Chilling effects can work both
>> ways.
>
> I don't understand the point here, the wiki already has a license[2] (or
> it could be considered "public domain" due to the
> missing /copyright.html).
public domain is not a license in its own. It describes the situation
of "federal employees only" .
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225
But you could probobly assume that if somebody contributed on debian
wiki they have contributed according to debian licensing requirements
even do they were missing.You could post a little description saying
to remove the content if it is otherwise.
>
> Also, If someone don't want to contribute some code or some
> documentation because of the license, then fine he shouldn't ! (Yes,
> Debian has high standards, that's why I chose it).
>
> If one wonders why I chose to add "www license" to the subject of this
> mail, it's simply because the website has the same "problem".
>
> Franklin
>
>
> [1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/All_Seated_on_the_Ground/
Maybe doing something like this?
"I think wiki should have default license which gets applied if there
isn't one specified. I also think contributor could apply a license if
he wanted to if its in this list (gpl. bsd, abc,bcd...only )"
> [2] http://web.archive.org/web/200504/wiki.debian.net/copyright.html
He owns a server but the license to the content is anything you want?
Lucas
Reply to: