This forking wiki has nothing to do with the attemp to fork CakePHP, or has it? Seems like we are under attack!
On May 6, 11:50 am, John David Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 6, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Marcin Domanski wrote: > > > > >>> Hey > >>>> The content is owned by the Cake Software Foundation (...) > >>> Can you elaborate why is that ? > >>> Why not use GPL ? GFDL ? Creative Commons ? > >>> For me it's wierd that a community contributed documentation > >>> cannot be > >>> used by the community without an approval. > > >> Mostly because we don't want 17 different copies of the content out > >> on > >> the web in different forms. > > Why don't you want that ? wikipedia is freely available and i don't > > see the problem where articles are available on other sites as long as > > people know its from wikipedia. > > There's also *one* wikipedia. How many side wikipedia efforts are > flourishing? > > > People know that the official docs are > > at cakephp.org. > > I disagree. Besides, even if your assertion was true, what's the point > in creating parallel efforts? If everyone knows where to get it from > the source, why would they visit other efforts? We've battled this > problem before, especially with CakePHP sites in other languages. > People *don't* know, especially when they're introduced to us through > a non-official channel. > > >> but the content in the manual is meant to be reviewed and contributed > >> to in an official setting. > > Yes but that doesn't really mean that the content couldn't be under > > GPL or whatever. > > I think it does. What's the point of having a license like that when > we only want the content coming from one place? > > >> What did you want to use it for? > > i didnt want to use it, but lets say - an in-house company cake > > course. > > Feel free to reference or quote from it inside your course materials, > just like you would any other material. > > > My point is: > > "It's weird that a community contributed documentation cannot be used > > by the community without an approval." > > I'm love you guys and i'm ok with the cookbook, i just think its not > > fair that community contributed docs aren't under an open license > >http://www.free-culture.cc/ > > I think the need to eliminate confusion is greater than the need for > open content. I still haven't even heard of a decent use case for > wanting to re-publish it. And if we did, I'd imagine we'd "grant > permission." > > -- John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
