Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Thinking about the subject matter is >>> hard enough, thinking about creating licensing pitfalls is best left to >>> lawyers and other parasi^W specialists.
The problem is that lawyers are thinking about pitfalls for you to fall into. Discussing licensing for a community effort like a wiki may seem a pedantic excercise bordering on the absurd, but it might avoid trouble later. >> or should we allow people to add notices to pages for other licenses? > Maybe we should start with forcing everything on the wiki to be licensed > under > a permissive license. The problem with allowing multiple licensing is that it can quickly get muddled as things get copied around. I would prefer a single (very permissive) license covering the whole wiki, and linking out to a different site for differently licensed material. (The license should encourage, and possibly require, attribution to the wiki rather than individual authors - I think it is important to de-emphasize individual ownership as much as possible - cf. previous discussions) -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
