On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have read your blog about the wiki[1] with interest, and I have some > comments and questions. > > Joey Hess wrote: >> I doubt that trying to get the whole wiki licensed under a specific >> license is a good use of time. > > My intend is to have a default license, and to get it applied to > existing content that have unclear license. > BTW, I don't think we should have a single license for the wiki : some > specific pages, like DebianReferences, could have a specific license. > > Can you clarify "good use of time" ? > > >> Since the wiki is not a package that we ship, but is instead a ad-hoc >> collection of many documents, and many conversations, I also don't see >> the point of a single consistent license, or any reason to be bothered >> by content whose license is not specified. > > Actually, I have on my plan to create a debian package with a (partial) > copy of the wiki, so offline users can access read it on the CD.
This could be done with a printing option and have the file as html http://wiki.debian.org/SystemPrinting?action=print Is there a specific section you would want to get off line? Filetype? > > Also, I consider that the content of most pages should be moved to > official documentations regularly (package documentation, README.Debian, > www.debian.org.etc...). How would this work? > > Finally I wish it were possible to share|fork|patch documentations, > including wiki pages, among distributions, with something like git+wml > (I'll post about this soon). > >> Be very wary of anything that makes contributing to the wiki require >> jumping through more legal hoops than it takes to contribute to >> lists.debian.org or bugs.debian.org. Chilling effects can work both >> ways. > > I don't understand the point here, the wiki already has a license[2] (or > it could be considered "public domain" due to the > missing /copyright.html). public domain is not a license in its own. It describes the situation of "federal employees only" . http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 But you could probobly assume that if somebody contributed on debian wiki they have contributed according to debian licensing requirements even do they were missing.You could post a little description saying to remove the content if it is otherwise. > > Also, If someone don't want to contribute some code or some > documentation because of the license, then fine he shouldn't ! (Yes, > Debian has high standards, that's why I chose it). > > If one wonders why I chose to add "www license" to the subject of this > mail, it's simply because the website has the same "problem". > > Franklin > > > [1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/All_Seated_on_the_Ground/ Maybe doing something like this? "I think wiki should have default license which gets applied if there isn't one specified. I also think contributor could apply a license if he wanted to if its in this list (gpl. bsd, abc,bcd...only )" > [2] http://web.archive.org/web/200504/wiki.debian.net/copyright.html He owns a server but the license to the content is anything you want? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
