* Craig Bradney <cbradney at zip.com.au> [2005-02-04 22:02:36 +0100]:
> On Friday 04 February 2005 21:06, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote: > > * Maciej Hanski <ma_han2000 at yahoo.de> [2005-02-04 15:08:07 +0100]: > > > Hi Craig and Tom, hi all, > > > I also would be happier with the by-sa licence instead of by-nc, or at > > > least would like to have some more discussion on this topic before > > > deciding which one to choose. And this not only because of some distros' > > > copyright policies, but for two other reasons. > > > > > > First of all, if the Scribus team wants to use the Scribus Wiki as some > > > sort of a "clearing house", before including some of its docs into the > > > official documentation (a very good idea, IMHO) - it would have to > > > comply with the terms of the licence, too, as anybody else would. That > > > means, IMHO, that in case of commercial use the Scribus team would > > > have to get the permission from the copyright holders, which are the > > > original authors of the docs, and not the side, who provides the webspace > > > and the wiki interface for them. Getting such permissions for each one of > > > the wiki docs from their authors can be really a nightmare, and I don't > > > really see the reason, why not starting with a more liberal licence in > > > first place. This is a situation, where nobody gains. > > > > > > Secondly, if we want to get as many users as possible to share their > > > knowledge/wisdom/experience, we should avoid any discouragment about > > > the licence issues. If somebody is willing to spent some hours/days of > > > his time on writing or updating a Scribus howto, he should also be > > > allowed to make commercial use of it. This should be in my opinion the > > > default situation. If some authors want to write their particular > > > contribution using explicitely the by-nc licence, they should allowed > > > to do so -- but this should be an exception from the rule. > > > > > > This is why I'm kindly asking for reconsidering once again the licence > > > decision. > > > > > > br > > > Maciej > > > > > > P.S. Regardless what your decision will be - thank you for setting up the > > > Wiki so fast :) > > > > I would like to second Maciej's suggestions above. This issue should be > > decided openly and swiftly to maximise everyone's benefit. Starting open > > and allowing specific docs to carry a less free license per author's choice > > is, in my personal opinion, a better way as the other choice leads into the > > madness of never getting the permissions of all authors even if something > > becomes valuable enough for inclusion into the official documentation. > > > > By the way, I am not going to say anything about the license of the current > > official documentation as that is not under discussion, has been firmly > > decided earlier, and we should respect the choice of core developers. But > > wiki is a separate issue and needs to be decided now, while there is not > > much in it. > > > > Ok.. I have changed it. Hope everyone who committed to the wiki so far is ok > with it. Its now by-sa. HOWEVER.. this does NOT mean we will include ANY of > the information within the official Scribus docs. > > The wiki is provided for users to post information they find out, make > suggestions, make comments on information we place there (eg when we post the > 1.3 roadmap there) etc. > > Craig Great! Thank you Craig. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20050204/50be9fb7/attachment.pgp
