(sorry if you already know this, just want to clarify. All AIUI, IANAL,
etc)
neither am i!-)
If you publish something under licence A, you still remain the copyright
holder, and can later also publish it under licence B. You can also
publish it combined with other material under licence B.
yes, and nobody is forced to sign on to that waiver list, either. but some
of those who do might find it hampering rather than encouraging their
own contributions. knowing as they do that someone else might publish
their results for and before them, and that they have given full permission
for that to happen. i would not like to see list contributions from those
active community members falter because of such possible side-effects.
most uses do not even seem to require that waiver. and those who do
not sign on might still be perfectly happy to respond to most requests
with a simple "ok, go ahead".
why should we have to think about licensing at all?
If you want code you write to be distributed by Debian, for example,
then you need to license it appropriately.
yes, and for the wiki it makes sense, and for open-source projects
it makes sense, and i prefer the least limiting licenses whenever possible.
i was just pointing out that the default copyright might make more sense
for the mailing list, imho. a simple email informing the original authors
shouldn't be that hard, should it?
jao (just another opinion;-)
claus
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
