FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-17-2010, 09:17 PM
Loui Chang
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:42 +0100, Ananda Samaddar wrote:
> I notice it's all under GFDL 1.2. I'm wanting to use a Gentoo doc
> for the Arch Security stuff but it's under a CC-SA attribution license
> which is incompatible with GFDL. Would it be possible to allow Wiki
> content under a CC licenses? I can't see it being too controversial a
> choice, as in CC licenses are now widely accepted. Even the venerable
> RMS uses CC licenses for his personal stuff as does a lot of the
> FSF/GNU stuff.

I don't think anyone would sue you for it.
 
Old 06-17-2010, 09:18 PM
Ananda Samaddar
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:17:38 -0400
Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:42 +0100, Ananda Samaddar wrote:
> > I notice it's all under GFDL 1.2. I'm wanting to use a Gentoo doc
> > for the Arch Security stuff but it's under a CC-SA attribution
> > license which is incompatible with GFDL. Would it be possible to
> > allow Wiki content under a CC licenses? I can't see it being too
> > controversial a choice, as in CC licenses are now widely accepted.
> > Even the venerable RMS uses CC licenses for his personal stuff as
> > does a lot of the FSF/GNU stuff.
>
> I don't think anyone would sue you for it.
>

Fair enough, the Arch Wiki states though that all content is under
GFDL1.2 in the page footer. Would it be possible to change this to
also allow Creative Commons? In other words officially endorse it in
the Arch Wiki.

Ananda
 
Old 06-17-2010, 09:19 PM
Linas
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

Ananda Samaddar wrote:
> I notice it's all under GFDL 1.2. I'm wanting to use a Gentoo doc
> for the Arch Security stuff but it's under a CC-SA attribution license
> which is incompatible with GFDL. Would it be possible to allow Wiki
> content under a CC licenses? I can't see it being too controversial a
> choice, as in CC licenses are now widely accepted. Even the venerable
> RMS uses CC licenses for his personal stuff as does a lot of the
> FSF/GNU stuff.
>
> Ananda
>

I assume this ask to have GFDL & CC-BY-SA content coexist at the wiki. The
existing content can only be relicensed by its authors. The GFDL 1.3
gateway
expired on August 1, 2009.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
 
Old 06-29-2010, 10:09 PM
Ananda Samaddar
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:19:09 +0200
Linas <linas_fi@ymail.com> wrote:

> I assume this ask to have GFDL & CC-BY-SA content coexist at the
> wiki. The existing content can only be relicensed by its authors. The
> GFDL 1.3 gateway
> expired on August 1, 2009.
>

I really need an answer on this as soon as possible. For new Wiki
articles would it be OK to add a footer in the article stating that it
is licensed under a CC license and not the GFDL? Any official word on
this please from the Arch wiki admins or developers. If you're not
willing to officially allow CC licenses could the 'override' paragraph
I'm suggesting for new content only be all right?

thanks,

Ananda
 
Old 06-29-2010, 10:30 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Ananda Samaddar <ananda@samaddar.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:19:09 +0200
> Linas <linas_fi@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> I assume this ask to have GFDL & CC-BY-SA content coexist at the
>> wiki. The existing content can only be relicensed by its authors. The
>> GFDL 1.3 gateway
>> expired on August 1, 2009.
>>
>
> I really need an answer on this as soon as possible. *For new Wiki
> articles would it be OK to add a footer in the article stating that it
> is licensed under a CC license and not the GFDL? *Any official word on
> this please from the Arch wiki admins or developers. *If you're not
> willing to officially allow CC licenses could the 'override' paragraph
> I'm suggesting for new content only be all right?

I honestly don't know who is going to reply to you. If you were to
just change the license I also don't think you'd have anyone come
after you anytime soon.

Who is in charge of the wiki these days I'm not sure, but I'd try to
get someone's attention besides mine- maybe Pierre or Aaron would be
the right guys.

-Dan
 
Old 06-29-2010, 10:56 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Ananda Samaddar <ananda@samaddar.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:19:09 +0200
>> Linas <linas_fi@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I assume this ask to have GFDL & CC-BY-SA content coexist at the
>>> wiki. The existing content can only be relicensed by its authors. The
>>> GFDL 1.3 gateway
>>> expired on August 1, 2009.
>>>
>>
>> I really need an answer on this as soon as possible. *For new Wiki
>> articles would it be OK to add a footer in the article stating that it
>> is licensed under a CC license and not the GFDL? *Any official word on
>> this please from the Arch wiki admins or developers. *If you're not
>> willing to officially allow CC licenses could the 'override' paragraph
>> I'm suggesting for new content only be all right?
>
> I honestly don't know who is going to reply to you. If you were to
> just change the license I also don't think you'd have anyone come
> after you anytime soon.
>
> Who is in charge of the wiki these days I'm not sure, but I'd try to
> get someone's attention besides mine- maybe Pierre or Aaron would be
> the right guys.

I was also waiting for someone more knowledgeable with regards to the wiki.

If it's my say-so you want, I don't see a problem with adding
*additional* content under CC. But switching all *existing* content to
CC might be a problem.

Is this sufficient?
 
Old 06-29-2010, 11:15 PM
Ananda Samaddar
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:56:39 -0500
Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was also waiting for someone more knowledgeable with regards to the
> wiki.
>
> If it's my say-so you want, I don't see a problem with adding
> *additional* content under CC. But switching all *existing* content to
> CC might be a problem.
>
> Is this sufficient?

Not really, I'm wanting to adapt a Gentoo document to Arch's needs.
This document is CC by SA attribution licensed. The whole Wiki article
would have to be under the same license and not the GFDL. The CC and
GFDL licenses are not compatible. Would it be ok to add a footer
paragraph to the Wiki article stating that the WHOLE article is CC
licensed and to disregard the GFDL footer at the bottom? This would
only be for new Wiki articles. I am not proposing re-licensing existing
Wiki articles.

thanks,

Ananda
 
Old 06-30-2010, 01:53 AM
Loui Chang
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Wed 30 Jun 2010 00:15 +0100, Ananda Samaddar wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:56:39 -0500
> Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was also waiting for someone more knowledgeable with regards to the
> > wiki.
> >
> > If it's my say-so you want, I don't see a problem with adding
> > *additional* content under CC. But switching all *existing* content to
> > CC might be a problem.
>
> Not really, I'm wanting to adapt a Gentoo document to Arch's needs.
> This document is CC by SA attribution licensed. The whole Wiki article
> would have to be under the same license and not the GFDL. The CC and
> GFDL licenses are not compatible. Would it be ok to add a footer
> paragraph to the Wiki article stating that the WHOLE article is CC
> licensed and to disregard the GFDL footer at the bottom? This would
> only be for new Wiki articles. I am not proposing re-licensing existing
> Wiki articles.

Just do it.
 
Old 07-02-2010, 12:10 AM
Ananda Samaddar
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:53:04 -0400
Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed 30 Jun 2010 00:15 +0100, Ananda Samaddar wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:56:39 -0500
> > Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was also waiting for someone more knowledgeable with regards to
> > > the wiki.
> > >
> > > If it's my say-so you want, I don't see a problem with adding
> > > *additional* content under CC. But switching all *existing*
> > > content to CC might be a problem.
> >
> > Not really, I'm wanting to adapt a Gentoo document to Arch's needs.
> > This document is CC by SA attribution licensed. The whole Wiki
> > article would have to be under the same license and not the GFDL.
> > The CC and GFDL licenses are not compatible. Would it be ok to add
> > a footer paragraph to the Wiki article stating that the WHOLE
> > article is CC licensed and to disregard the GFDL footer at the
> > bottom? This would only be for new Wiki articles. I am not
> > proposing re-licensing existing Wiki articles.
>
> Just do it.
>

OK I will do. Anyone who objects to this should say so now.

Ananda
 
Old 07-02-2010, 09:54 AM
Gaurish Sharma
 
Default Licensing of Arch Wiki content

No Objections from my side
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org