Differences between revisions 19 and 20
Revision 19 as of 2005-01-29 18:24:41
Size: 5486
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Revision 20 as of 2005-01-31 22:22:52
Size: 5412
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 73: Line 73:
A specific thing not posible is making a HowTo in this wiki and then republish it on the bebian website. A specific thing not possible is making a HowTo in this wiki and then republish it on the Debian website.
Line 78: Line 78:
Personaly I think that we can better have a unrestricted license.
So it's posible to change the license later (right?) to something else after a proper legal analesis and discusion and republish the existing content under this new license?
(sorry for any incorect spelling, no openoffice installed atm for spellcheck)
Personally I think that we can better have a unrestricted license.
So it's possible to change the license later (right?) to something else after a proper legal analysis and discussion and republish the existing content under this new license?

["DebianWiki"]


DebianWiki is not licensed under the ["GFDL"]. Whoever keeps suggesting it is, please stop.

We could change it to be really a public domain and collaborative project . PedroM

Please see http://wiki.debian.net/copyright.html for the copyright. I believe the current statement, similar to what is used on ?WardsWiki and ?MeatBall, accomplishes a "public domain" and collaborative project. I do not see what switching to GFDL would accomplish. --MichaelIvey


GFDL would give me more confidence that my contributions are and will stay in the Public Domain.

Since you retain your copyrights for your words, I cannot relicense it, or take it out of the "Public Domain." -mdi

Although I havened read the GFDL (yet), I think a FSF license is alright. Still documentation is not the same as a wiki... The GFDL might not be a good choice for a wiki? (I have to read it)

I would suggest reading a license (any license) before advocating its usage. I don't think the GFDL is suitable for anything, especially considering the current opinion of many, myself included, that it isn't a free license. -mdi

"The recommended license for any (new) document in Debian is the GNU General Public License" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html The GNU GPL license is a good license I think. (I did read it)

Anyway a transition to another license is not possible as you MichaelIvey clearly state you do not own the contributions, so you can't republish them under another license. And as the current license will not allow people to copy the text without restrictions, a change in the license will have the implication that all work must be considered lost.

I might not be right about this. If someone could make a proper legal analysis of the [http://wiki.debian.net/copyright.html current copyright]? And all of it's implications?

Tim Blokdijk

The current copyright page is a recent statement of the facts as I see them. I never collected anyone's copyright, and I do not wish to. -mdi


For the record, I never advocated the usage of the GFDL. And I'm not the one suggesting DebianWiki is licensed under the GFDL.

Anyway, as content from this wiki cannot be copied under the current license it's not possible to make documentation for debian in this wiki. Text can not be taken out of this wiki to make a "how to" for example. (Unless all contributors allow it to be which is not practical on a wiki)

Another problem is that if your take the server down the "us" is the undefined entity that has the permission to publish the words people have submitted. Who is "us" enough to start another server with a back-up of this wiki?

Well there are probably more things that can be a problem and effectively remove a/all contribution(s) from the "public domain".


We can start now the GFDL from now, for the new pages . And for sure, all my work can be used in the public domain (excepting by this peoples that don´t give their work in the public domain; if Linux / Debian is GNU, a Debian wiki must be in the same way ).


Sorry for being a pain in ass. :) But this wiki uses the official debian logo's and can be found under a debian domain so that means it needs to be done right.

Tim Blokdijk


Some thoughts:

  1. if Linux - Debian is GNU, a Debian wiki must be in the same way ... I disagree. The Wiki is not the same as the OS. It can be different.

  2. Debian does not consider the GFDL to be a free license.

  3. I'd like to repeat that. The Debian project does not consider the GFDL to be a free license.
  4. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the content in the Wiki shouldn't be used by anyone and everyone. I, most certainly, am not suggesting that.
  5. Who is "us" enough to start another server with a back-up of this wiki? ... I'm happy to provide a tarball of the database, plugin/archive and plugin/page_metadata directories to anyone who asks. If enough people want it, I can make that an automated process.

  6. GPL/GFDL != Public Domain
  7. I would really like to stop talking about licenses and copyrights. Can anyone engaged in this discussion offer examples of things ... specific things ... that they would like to do with Debian Wiki content that they currently cannot do?

  8. My preference is to continue to view DebianWiki as a giant bathroom wall. Don't write anything you don't want everyone to see, and the janitor to clean later.

  9. If this is going to be a real problem, I would consider a ?CreativeCommons license (["CCBySa"]?) ... however we would have to take all of the current content offline and start over. I don't see a way to relicense everything, or do a half and half solution.

--MichaelIvey


A specific thing not possible is making a ?HowTo in this wiki and then republish it on the Debian website.

?CreativeCommons ?BySa is not practical as all contributers need to be given credit. With a wiki the list with contributors will soon be longer then the actual content. :) ?CreativeCommons Sa might be better? Personally I think that we can better have a unrestricted license. So it's possible to change the license later (right?) to something else after a proper legal analysis and discussion and republish the existing content under this new license?

Tim Blokdijk