On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 16:17 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 22:48 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 15. Mai 2011, um 22:02:45 schrieb Mike Noyes: > > > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 21:45 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > > > > Am Sonntag, 15. Mai 2011, um 15:08:12 schrieb davidMbrooke: > > > -snip- > > > > > > > > > > With specific reference to the Wiki, there is currently no > > > > > > > statement about the license which applies to the Wiki text itself. > > > > > > > For my own contributions I would prefer to apply the "Creative > > > > > > > Commons Attribution-ShareAlike > > > > > > > License" (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) which is > > > > > > > what Wikipedia uses. > > > > > > > However there is some text imported from the previous > > > > > > > DocBook documentation which may use a different license. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not aware that any docbook content has been written with a > > > > > > special license in mind. Is it necessary to ask the original authors > > > > > > individually? > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway I think the license sound good and reasonable for the wiki > > > > > > content, at least as far as I'm concerned. > > > > > > > > > > I will review the DocBook source for any license statements, but I > > > > > propose to declare that the cc-by-sa license applies to the Wiki > > > > > content if there are no objections. > > > > > > > > No need to inverstigate the docbook license IMHO. My question was if we > > > > have to ask those who has written the docbook-based contents > > > > individually for permission (Arne, Martin, Jacques, EricS, ETitl, Luis > > > > et al)...? As I said we've never discussed license issues before, and > > > > I'm confident they'll agree, if we add the license to the wiki you > > > > proposed - but better be safe than then sorry. > > > > > > KP & David, > > > We've discussed documentation licensing in the past too. I think most of > > > our current documentation was released into the public domain. > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=leaf-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net&q=d > > > ocumentation+license > > > > Phew; you'll show a good memory (again) - the discussions are from > > 2000-2002... > > > > Do you think it's a pb if we change the documentation license to the one > > dmb > > proposed? > > KP, > Not for my part. You, David, and Andrew have put most of the work in on > the wiki. I recommend you give the other contributers time to respond. I > seriously doubt there will be any objections though.
Mike, Thanks for the feedback. I suspected there must have been some discussions in the early days of LEAF. My searches did not turn up any license discussions but I did not think to go back as far as 2001. :-) The "GNU Free Documentation License" is my second choice for the Wiki content but IMHO CC-BY-SA seems more in line with the spirit of the GPL. By the way, if you get chance, please could you investigate whether our MediaWiki installation can be configured to show the license on every page. If your admin access lets you edit LocalSettings.php then variables like $wgRightsUrl can be set as described at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:LocalSettings.php#Setting_copyright_for_the_site dMb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
