Differences between revisions 26 and 27
Revision 26 as of 2007-10-28 21:50:24
Size: 8210
Comment:
Revision 27 as of 2008-02-26 23:07:07
Size: 8378
Editor: FranklinPiat
Comment: fix link
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
## Auto-converted by kwiki2moinmoin v2005-10-07
["DebianWiki"]
#language en
["DebianWiki"] > Wiki Is Not GFDL
||<tablestyle="width: 100%;" style="border: 0px hidden">~- Translation(s): none-~||<style="text-align: right; border: 0px hidden"> [:DebianWiki/ConventionsDiscussion:Discussion]||
Line 8: Line 9:
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 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

["DebianWiki"] > Wiki Is Not GFDL

Translation(s): none

[:DebianWiki/ConventionsDiscussion:Discussion]


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


I think there is some mixup in the communication so far. I think the problem is that the bathroom wall concept means that the information on the Wiki is in fact public domain (that is anyone can do as they see fit with what is on the wiki), however the copyright statement says that the original author continues to hold the copyright on the material, which means that they have to be contacted before one is allowed to do anything with the material (and much of the time the material is unattributed).

Personally I would like everything I write to be available for use by anyone, but unless you make that the specific policy (i.e. public domain or free-as-in-speech licensed) what you have is not a bathroom wall because the control of the material published on the Wiki remains with the author. If you wish what is on the Wiki to be legally available for backup, reposting by anyone, reuse in a GPL'd HOWTO etc, you need to make it clear that this is the intention (which IMO is best done by stating that all material on the wiki is automatically released under the GPL, though the original author holds the copyright on the material).

This situation is basically why the GPL was created in the first place; the object is for material to be free-as-in-speech without rendering the material public domain (i.e. no copyright).

I think the point Tim is making is that under current laws in most western nations the current copyright statement means that you cannot use the content of the Wiki without the risk of litigation. Sure it is technically feasible to do whatever you want, but legally is another matter entirely. I can take whatever I want from a corporate website and do anything with it if I want too (at least the plaintext content), but if they find out they'd probably sue. Just because something is technically feasible, or ought to be obvious, doesn't mean that's the way the law works. The legal system sucks, especially when it comes to intellectual property.

Just to be clear: I know for a fact that under U.S. and Canadian laws that placing something in the public domain means relinquishing your copyright. That is, something in the public domain is not owned by anyone including the original author. That, and the fact that something that is 99% public domain, with 1% new material can be copyrighted and not public domain, is why the GPL was created.

HTH DanielDickinson


However, since (AFAIK) no copyright.html was ever available on this site (check archive.org), we could choose to use OPL (Open Publication License) listed on http://debian.org/license.

-- FranklinPiat ?DateTime(2007-10-10T19:19:57Z)