On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 18:07, Martin Bagge / brother <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> I see no need at all to relicense the wiki to anything by now.
>
There may not be a pressing need now. However, if there is ever going to be
a change (and we don't want to stay with GFDL 1.2 forever, right?) then the
sooner it is started, the easier it will be.
As the wiki has been open for edits from anonymous I think we will have
> problems contacting all editors. Some of the edits can probably be
> matched to core contributors and ruled out. The other parts have to be
> examined to settle if the texts are still in use or have been replaced
> by someone who would like to relicense.
>
This is true.
If it's a small contribution, it probably doesn't matter, as copyright
doesn't apply to just one or two sentences. (I've never heard anyone else
raise this in the license context, but it makes sense to me.) It's worth
saying that the licenses are basically the same in intent, and I doubt the
contributors would mind. Note these two posts I made, describing attorneys'
opinions which support this idea:
1. [cc-community] Changing *almost* compatible licenses
<http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2009-April/004616.html>
2. [cc-community] Changing *almost* compatible licenses
<http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2009-April/004620.html>
I don't know if that would be different in different countries. Anyway, the
point is we don't need to get too concerned with removing every last
anonymous edit, as long as a reasonable effort is made to note which
material is under the new license, and which is not.
I'd suggest that as a transition measure, the wiki is switched to the dual
license, but old pages or sections which are mainly GFDL 1.2 are kept and
flagged as such. Eventually they will be rewritten or become obsolete. Users
who agree to relicense their old contributions would be listed, and
hopefully that would account for most of the content. (Here's an idea, but I
don't know if it's needed: A note could be added to the license that when a
contributor edits a section marked under a certain license, e.g. GFDL 1.2,
their contributions are automatically licensed under that license as well as
the wiki's default license. That may be stating the obvious, though. Anyway,
it's better to edit outside such sections, to create documentation which
does not have GFDL 1.2 content mixed in.)
Sorry for being so long-winded!
Chris
> (I have more or less never been authenticated to the english wiki while
> doing edits, as an example =))
> --
> brother
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
> on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Lxde-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
>
--
Chris Watkins
Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.
identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org
I like this: five.sentenc.es
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Lxde-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
