Re: Questions about BTS SOAP interface "pending" attribute
Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Once I'm sure
>> I've got it I'll make sure it's also documented on
>> "http://wiki.debian.org/Glossary"; (unless someone else gets there
>> first).
>
> I am not sure that those names fit really well in that glossary (which
> seems to be much more end-user oriented)...
It's oriented towards explaining jargon to people who don't already
know what it means. There needs to be some such documentation
*somewhere* or the apt-listbugs man page is just going to have to say
"-S: secret voodoo option".
> Anyway, I see that the Glossary is a license-less wiki page.
> As you surely know, this defaults to "All rights reserved" under the
> current unfortunate copyright laws.
I thought I was vaguely remembering a license pointer on the Wiki's
front page (after all, I've never seen a paper dictionary with a
prominent copyright statement on *every single page*), but now I see
the trail leading to http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWiki/LicencingTerms
is a dead end. Still, I'm not convinced that sourcecode-centric
licenses like the GPL make sense for things like wikis, since the
Moin-syntax "preferred form for modification" isn't what people are
going to want to copy.
> I would be grateful, if you could get in touch with all the copyright
> holders for this useful wiki page and ask them to agree to license it
> in a DFSG-free manner.
That's not going to happen. Much of that page was re-written by me
last year, but it's based on material from all over the place - early
contributors had copied most of its entries from other existing
acronym lists. Even http://wiki.debian.org/WhyTheName has too many
contributors by now for it to do any good trying to chase them.
If you want to fix this, wouldn't it make more sense to start with the
wiki's new page templates?
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: