> As one of the 18 "yes" votes to that proposal, yes. If task #4 ('Past
> contributors to the Documentation Wiki should be notified by emails sent
> to Evergreen community mailing lists and to the email address associated
> with their docuwiki account of the new licensing terms and given a
> reasonable amount of time to request that their contributions not be
> included under those licensing terms') happened, and there were no
> refusals, then we should be in reasonably good shape. (We could stand to
> add an explicit footer on the wiki stating that all contributions are
> licensed under CC-BY-SA, of course).I think task #4 having happened could only help if there is ever a legal dispute, but I don't think it gave us any right to re-license another copyright holder's material, if that's what anyone thought. > For what it's worth, I bet the bulk of the copyright holders who > contributed to the wiki prior to January 7, 2010 could be counted on two > hands (and consequently asked if they object to the incorporation of > their content into the Evergreen documentation under an explicit > CC-BY-SA license). Also note that we could ask GPLS to explicitly > license any work performed by their employees prior to that date, given > how copyright in the US is by default assigned to the employer. After > that - how much do you realistically think would be left? Doesn't seem insurmountable. Who's our copyright coordinator again? :) -- Jason Etheridge | VP, Tactical Development | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: ja...@esilibrary.com | web: http://www.esilibrary.com _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION@list.georgialibraries.org http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
