[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#385797: marked as done (wiki.debian.org: Wiki does not have a license)

Your message dated Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:55:15 +0200
with message-id <20140922165515.46a727ec@s5.lokal>
and subject line closing bugreport
has caused the Debian Bug report #385797,
regarding wiki.debian.org: Wiki does not have a license
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
385797: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=385797
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal


The link http://wiki.debian.org/copyright.html (which is supposed to
point to the copyright notice) linked from
http://wiki.debian.org/About does not exist.  Also, as with
www.debian.org a link to the license should be at the bottom of, at
least, the front page.

There is some discussion of the wiki license at
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWikiIsNotGFDL but there are contradictary
statements made there about what the license is supposed to be.

I am hesitant to contribute to the wiki because of this because I want
to be able to take updates made to pages I work on (start or help
edit) at the wiki and include them in the versions of the pages on my
website (with appropriate attribution and/or licensing).

Also, not having a license statement means the licensing of the wiki
may be non-free and thereby violate debian policy.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (200, 'testing'), (75, 'unstable'), (10, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-2-k7
Locale: LANG=en_CA, LC_CTYPE=en_CA (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

My explanation was sent there two weeks ago.
A quick summary is, that conributors have to decide individually, what license to apply
for their content. If they don't pay attention to this, then their content is in the
public domain.
It is also unlikely, that more useful information is posted here regarding the issue.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlQgOFoACgkQ5+rBHyUt5wvsBQCfUgM5NluuWsMpPU6Eg0pTV1Sb
F8kAoLiTbaf65xtF2g8XC1aE0SFDudsw
=ybC2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- End Message ---
Reply to: