On 16/03/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.ku...@uclmail.net> wrote: > Ideally, Coreboot would dual-license the content under the GFDL and CC > BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license compatible with content > from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites.
Actually, CC BY-SA 3.0 alone would be better. That is because copying CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed content from Stack Exchange, and then publishing it under both CC BY-SA 3.0 *and* GFDL, would be a breach of CC BY-SA 3.0. On 16/03/2017, Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > On 03/16/2017 04:10 PM, Sam Kuper wrote: >> Looks like there are only 172 additional Coreboot wiki contributors to >> account for :) > > Yep :-) I just figured that if the major contributors on this list > specified a license we'd be well on our way to fixing this! For the (re-)licensing effort to succeed: - the remaining 172 people need to be contacted; - there needs to be a way to keep track of who has been responded, and what their response was. Contacting the wiki contributors would seem to require the involvement of a person with privileged access to the wiki, such as Patrick Georgi or Stefan Reinauer (CC'd). In the first instance, perhaps that person should attempt to reach those users via MassMessage: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:MassMessage Collating replies: I'm not sure. Make a table on the wiki with two columns: one with all the usernames in, and one for the users to put their signatures in to indicate willingness to license their contributions under the proposed terms? Any better suggestions? Also: sanity check. Does anyone else here besides me and Timothy feel that making the wiki documentation available under a free culture license would be a good idea? -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
