On 2006 January 11 Wednesday 18:52, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
How about this one (from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Donate_to_the_public_domain)?
I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible:
I
Neil Mitchell wrote:
A link from the wiki to where? The wiki is supposed to take over the
haskell.org site. But maybe we can still have directories that are not
part of the wiki.
Some of the pages on the Haskell site simply *can't* be moved over to
the wiki, Hoogle http://haskell.org/hoogle/
Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any
conditions, unless such conditions are
On 1/12/06, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Mitchell wrote:
A link from the wiki to where? The wiki is supposed to take over the
haskell.org site. But maybe we can still have directories that are not
part of the wiki.
Some of the pages on the Haskell site simply *can't* be
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
I'm not a copyright lawyer, but is quoting really disallowed when it
comes to source code? I know that in most countries it's perfectly
legal to quote parts of book and articles, wouldn't the same apply to
source code?
That doesn't necessarily
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 14:41 schrieb Malcolm Wallace:
[...]
However, it also needs a disclaimer of warranty, and (as others have
noted) a note about explicitly quoted material which may have other
copyrights and licences. How about:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without
any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law,
or explicitly claimed in the work for some clearly identifiable
portion of the work. No warranty of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ashley has a point though - we couldn't quote from the Haskell report on
the wiki, or indeed quote source code from pretty much anywhere (most
code has a non-PD license) if the whole wiki is PD. The wiki-wide
license
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Scott Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder, though, whether adding a disclaimer is needed. If you take the by
out of the Creative Commons license, as ajb suggested, then the major feature
remaining is the disclaimer. Along with that is verbiage which makes
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Malcolm Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
I would much rather use a known license than one cobbled together by
various non-lawyers. Currently I am considering:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 18:58 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:
[...]
The Creative Commons project helpfully provides a public domain
declaration, that may be preferable to the earlier one I cited (although
it doesn't have a disclaimer either):
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 19:07 schrieb Wolfgang Jeltsch:
[...]
In addition, it uses this ugly word ( :-) ) public domain instead.
I meant: again, not: instead.
[...]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh, this is rather complex. Do we understand all the implications this
license would have? In addition, it uses this ugly word ( :-) ) public
domain instead.
Yeah, I prefer the other one, especially as this one
On 2006-01-12, Malcolm Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it also needs a disclaimer of warranty,
Agreed, agreed, agreed.
I'd prefer to find a prewritten license that covers this, of course.
--
Aaron Denney
--
___
Haskell mailing list
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2006-01-12, Malcolm Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it also needs a disclaimer of warranty,
Agreed, agreed, agreed.
I'd prefer to find a prewritten license that covers this, of course.
If we can't find one, we might lift sections 5 6 from the Creative
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
Ashley Yakeley wrote:
I think we're going for public domain, assuming we can also add text to
satisfy German law, etc.
AIUI, the main problem with the notion of public domain under
typical European copyright law is that authors have moral rights (e.g.
the right of attribution and to
Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2006 05:38 schrieben Sie:
[...]
My suggestion would be
* One license for the Wiki. If a contributor wants to put up material
with a different license, then link to it as Udo suggested. (This also
makes it clear that the link is to material that is not to be edited
Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2006 07:17 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ft.com,
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suggestion would be
* One license for the Wiki. If a contributor wants to put up material
with a different license, then link to it as Udo
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where can I get an account for the wiki?
Click on Log in at the bottom-right hand corner of the page.
I don't want my IP address to
appear
in some history. Or isn't the wiki configured to store IP addresses like
Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2006 19:19 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:
[...]
AFAIK IP addresses are not stored at all, but I haven't examined the code
for this.
Hello Ashley,
Wikipedia stores and displays IP addresses if the user which did the edit
wasn't logged in.
[...]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Wikipedia stores and displays IP addresses if the user which did the edit
wasn't logged in.
This is disabled in HaskellWiki; you have to log in to edit. I did this
because hawiki apparently had had some problems with vandalism and had
done the same thing.
--
Ashley
I wrote:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Yes, BSD might be too restrictive. So let's put every wiki content
under a very permissive license like the one Udo proposed. Opinions?
Presumably a very permissive license might include the phrase public
domain in any case? Does anyone want to draw one
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
* One license for the Wiki. If a contributor wants to put up material
with a different license, then link to it as Udo suggested. (This also
makes it clear that the link is to material that is not to be edited by
others, whereas by definition the entire Wiki actively
Neil Mitchell wrote:
We won't be able to include the Haskell 98 Report on the wiki (which is
intended to replace the entire haskell.org site) because it has a more
restrictive license.
At the same time, we probably don't want people editing the haskell
report! As such, a link from the wiki is
G'day all.
Quoting Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, BSD might be too restrictive. So let's put every wiki content under a
very permissive license like the one Udo proposed. Opinions?
I agree. Does such a licence already exist?
If not, I'd suggest taking the Creative Commons by
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, BSD might be too restrictive. So let's put every wiki content under
a
very permissive license like the one Udo proposed. Opinions?
I agree. Does such a licence
G'day all.
Quoting Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about this one?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Donate_to_the_public_domain
I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible:
I grant
On 1/10/06, Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Can we please settle on a This work may be used freely for any purpose
and comes without any expressed or implied warranty and just _link_ to
existing works that don't fit in? Thinking about the subject matter is
hard
Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2006 22:52 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Can we please settle on a This work may be used freely for any purpose
and comes without any expressed or implied warranty and just _link_ to
existing works that don't fit in? Thinking about the subject matter is
Wolfgang Jeltsch writes:
Maybe we should start with forcing everything on the wiki to be
licensed under a permissive license. We could use the one Udo
proposed. Or we could use a BSD-style license so that we can
incorporate parts of already existing BSD-style-licensed material.
BSD is also
I'm not sure how things work legally, but the wiki itself has all of
the authorship information in it. Simply acknowledging that something
came from the Haskell wiki would allow anyone to identify the
underlying source given the ability to crawl around in page
histories. I wouldn't want to have
| Jeltsch
| Sent: 10 January 2006 22:30
| To: haskell@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: [Haskell] Re: haskell.org Public Domain
|
| Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2006 23:03 schrieb John Meacham:
| [...]
|
| I would say something like 'contributions and any derivations must
be
| usable for any purpose
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ft.com,
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suggestion would be
* One license for the Wiki. If a contributor wants to put up material
with a different license, then link to it as Udo suggested. (This also
makes it clear that the link is to
Cale Gibbard wrote:
As long as that's just the default and not required of course.
No, all contributions would be in the public domain.
It
might be nice to at least include some disclaimers of warranty.
Good idea.
--
Ashley Yakeley
___
Haskell
It might be nice to at least include some disclaimers of warranty.
I'm not a lawyer. But those US copyright lawyers I've spoken with
have expressed doubts
about anybody's ability to put things into the public domain.
Certainly, if you put it in the
public domain, you can't also disclaim a
36 matches
Mail list logo
