On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 21:56 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
>
> > lemming:
> > >
> > > ... and there was unfortunately no support in porting the stuff. I guess
> > > some simple program (perl -p -e 's/{{{/<hask>/g' :-) could have simplified
> > > a lot. Its however more difficult for me to do this via the web interface,
> > > than for the people who have access to the bare files.
> >
> > The problem was the licensing. Only pages whose authors were known, and
> > who gave permission to license the work freely, were ported. And only
> > some of those pages actually got moved.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I like to say, that the new HaskellWiki is just a
> new way to present the old content. What have the authors (implicitly)
> agreed on, when they entered content into Hawiki? What exactly is
> "Hawiki". If you had reconfigured Hawiki to be presented in different
> colors, with different font, different frame, different design - at which
> point would Hawiki have been no longer Hawiki, thus requiring new
> permission from authors? Now, since Moin-Moin-Hawiki is gone, can
> HaskellWiki be considered as a new design of Hawiki, a different engine
> presenting the same old content?
The issue is that we don't know what the "license" is for the -content-
of HaWiki. HaskellWiki explicitly states that all the content in it has
a specific license. We can't take the old content and put it on
HaskellWiki because that would imply that it is licensed under
HaskellWiki's license which it is not.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
