On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Sunday 11 October 2009 20:39:48 Juiceman wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Cl?ment <cvollet at gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Saturday 10 October 2009 23:53:52 Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >> On Thursday 08 October 2009 00:49:11 Cl?ment wrote: >> >> > Hello, I felt bored tonight, so I wrote this. >> >> > >> >> > This is just a beginning, but in order to have a good UI, we need to >> >> > adress those questions with all the attention they deserve. In >> >> > particular, the raison d'etre (why a new UI?) and the model of the user >> >> > (what is our target audience?). >> >> >> >> This is logical. >> >> >> >> > FREENET UI >> >> > >> >> > => Raison d'etre: >> >> > >> >> > "To allow the user to access all (or the more of) the services provided >> >> > by a Freenet node. >> >> >> >> Or the functionality that they will commonly want to use, with the rest >> >> ?being provided by third party tools etc? >> >> >> > Sure >> >> > Current limitations: >> >> > - A lot of users complain about Freenet being complicated to use >> >> >> >> Freenet is complicated, period. Many important things about Freenet are >> >> ?hard to safely simplify. :( >> >> >> > Well, we should find out which things are hard to simplify : are they >> > essential >> > to use Freenet ? >> >> I started coding a "help" servlet for Freenet, accessible if you go to >> http://127.0.0.1:8888/help >> but became discouraged when I had to start worrying about licensing >> issues with copy pasting text from the various Freenet wikis. ?My >> original idea was to use the l10n language files to contain the >> information and allow translation, but it is an ugly kludge and would >> only allow translation of English to other languages keeping the exact >> same formatting and wouldn't allow other languages to be expanded >> beyond without editing the code of Freenet itself and not just a text >> file. > > Licensing is a pain. However, we are making a new wiki, and we can simply > declare prominently that the wiki is licensed under a particular > GPL-compatible license? Of course then we can't use the stuff on the old > wiki, which has no such license declaration. Thoughts?
A lot of the text on the old wiki was written by a small number of people. We can move most of it to a CC license simply by asking the authors. Consider this permission to use any of my contributions to the Freenet wiki under GPL v2 or later, or CC-BY-SA 3.0. (If you want something else instead, ask, I doubt I'd have a problem.) Evan Daniel
