This situation brings me to giving my own thoughts on the Codex licensing.
The GPL is great for code and all, but the Codex isn’t a piece of code in the traditional sense; it’s clearly documentation. Wikipedia’s original licensing was under the GNU Free Documentation License (as are some “open source” books like the Free High School Science Texts) because that’s the kind of license that is more suited to documentation. The GPL references “the Program” many times, and I don’t see how the textual documentation on the Codex is a Program. I personally feel that the GNU Free Documentation License would be in line with the spirit of the GPL, while the use of a Creative Commons license would be make sharing/re-using more accessible. In any case, in response to your questions: 1. There aren’t really easy guidelines for such a case. Unless you are the copyright owner or the agent of the owners, you cannot sublicense the content of the Codex except in line with the official license (which happens to be the GPL). The person who wants to print out the Codex in her book might want to clear this up with Automattic. 2. The list on the Codex of “Copyright Holders” are core code contributors as opposed to Codex contributors. It is also difficult to cite the author of a specific page, since many people under pseudonyms and Internet usernames may have edited it. If Wikipedia is any guide in this gray area, the ‘authors’ on a collaborative wiki are the “[WordPress Codex] contributors”. 3. Again, I think this person should contact Automattic, since they own the project and are the guardians of WordPress in general. However, note that the licensing on the Codex is blurry in that the copyrights on the wiki are not explicitly transferred to Automattic, so the rightsholders of Codex content are essentially contributors from around the world who have agreed to contribute under the GPL. I’m not sure if the Codex has a Terms of Service or contract that gives Automattic the right to sublicense under different terms. I’m not an expert by any means, so please double-check everything I’ve said. Regards, Frederick Ding From: Cátia Kitahara [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 13, 2009 11:56 To: [email protected] Subject: [wp-docs] Codex licence issue Hi, guys, I've got some questions for you, but first let me introduce myself. My name is Cátia and I'm from the Brazilian WP Community and I'm responsible for the br.wordpress.org. I've got an email sent through its contact form from a person asking me if she can publish parts of the Codex in a book she will soon release, and if so, how she should proceed about copyrights and such. Well, I understand the Codex is also released under the GPL (as stated here: http://codex.wordpress.org/Codex:About), however, the GPL isn't very clear about this issue. So, my questions are: 1. Are there any easy guidelines on how to proceed in such a case? 2. Who should be copyrighted, this list here: http://codex.wordpress.org/Copyright_Holders (it seems to be the WP coders rather than the contributors to the codex) or does it depends on which page will be included, so she should look for the author of that specific page? 3. Is there anybody this person should be talking to rather than me, since I don't know much about it? Thanks in advance, -- Cátia Kitahara www.catiakitahara.com.br www.airuma.com.br www.wordpress-br.com -- Cátia Kitahara www.catiakitahara.com.br www.airuma.com.br www.wordpress-br.com
_______________________________________________ wp-docs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs
