Re: [Haskell] Re: License for haskell.org content

[Jan-Willem Maessen]

On Jan 9, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:


Chris Kuklewicz wrote:


==
Conclusion
It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and  
incorporate

it in any free software program whatsoever.  This is not a mere
license incompatibility.  It's not just that the GFDL is incompatible
with this or that free software license: it's that it is  
fundamentally

incompatible with any free software license whatsoever.  So if you
write a new program, and you have no commitments at all about what
license you want to use, saving only that it be a free license, you
cannot include GFDL'd text.
The GNU FDL, as it stands today, does not meet the Debian Free
Software Guidelines.  There are significant problems with the  
license,

as detailed above; and, as such, we cannot accept works licensed unde
the GNU FDL into our distribution.
==
Thus defaulting the FDL for all wiki content, including code, is a  
very bad idea.


I agree - can we please use BSD or public domain?


I concur.  If you work at a largish company, the IP contamination  
worries can be really irritating.  Putting it all in the public  
domain ensures that people like me can read and contribute without  
trouble.


-Jan-Willem Maessen



Cheers,
Simon

___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell


___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: [Haskell] Re: License for haskell.org content

[ajb]

G'day all.

Quoting Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I agree - can we please use BSD or public domain?

Creative Commons "by" might be an appropriate alternative:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: [Haskell] Re: License for haskell.org content

[Jean-Philippe Bernardy]

We could also use multi licensing. A possibility is to have, by
default, everything licensed at the same time under BSD, CC, FDL and
GPL.

(For those who wonder, this suggestion is serious /and/ sarcastic at
the same time)

Cheers,
JP.

On 1/9/06, Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:16:45PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >  Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Why not use the GPL, then?
> > >
> > > FWIW, the GFDL is considered non-free by Debian[1], so that would mean
> > > any documentation or anything derived from the wiki couldn't be packaged
> > > for Debian.
> > >
> > > Apart from the issue of code itself on the wiki, that other people have
> > > already mentioned, presumably you'd also have licence fun if you try to
> > > take surrounding explanatory text to use as haddock docs etc.
> >
> > Let's discuss it on the wiki:
> > 
>
> I don't know if there was a reason you chose my message in particular to
> reply to, but I have no intention of discussing this, or anything else,
> on a wiki.
>
> Incidentally, if anyone's collecting votes/opinions, I'd vote "yes" for
> any of GPL, BSD, PD, and "no" for any other licence I can think of.
>
> (I am unlikely to directly contribute anything to the wiki ATM, though).
>
>
> Thanks
> Ian
>
> ___
> Haskell mailing list
> Haskell@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
>
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: [Haskell] Re: License for haskell.org content

[Ian Lynagh]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:16:45PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Why not use the GPL, then?
> > 
> > FWIW, the GFDL is considered non-free by Debian[1], so that would mean
> > any documentation or anything derived from the wiki couldn't be packaged
> > for Debian.
> > 
> > Apart from the issue of code itself on the wiki, that other people have
> > already mentioned, presumably you'd also have licence fun if you try to
> > take surrounding explanatory text to use as haddock docs etc.
> 
> Let's discuss it on the wiki:
> 

I don't know if there was a reason you chose my message in particular to
reply to, but I have no intention of discussing this, or anything else,
on a wiki.

Incidentally, if anyone's collecting votes/opinions, I'd vote "yes" for
any of GPL, BSD, PD, and "no" for any other licence I can think of.

(I am unlikely to directly contribute anything to the wiki ATM, though).


Thanks
Ian

___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: [Haskell] Re: License for haskell.org content

[Udo Stenzel]

Ketil Malde wrote:
> Another option is the Open Publication License, which requires
> acknowledgement (but little else).

...which would mean that whenever you rearrange something inside the
wiki, you'd have to drag signatures around (and god forbid you
accidentally drop a single one).  The only way out would be to assign
copyright of contributions to some central entity, so the attribution
would always be "(C) The Haskell Wiki Foundation" or something.  Anyone
willing to found or find a suitable non-profit organisation?

Sounds like a stupid idea?  Thought so.  A wiki should be public domain,
plain and simple.  (Put contributions with a different license somewhere
else and link to them.  No big deal.)


Udo.
-- 
People with great minds talk about ideas.
People with ordinary minds talk about things.
People with small minds talk about other people.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: [Haskell] Re: License for haskell.org content

[Ketil Malde]

Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Thus defaulting the FDL for all wiki content, including code, is a
>> very bad idea.

> I agree - can we please use BSD or public domain?

Another option is the Open Publication License, which requires
acknowledgement (but little else).  Anyway, I think a point that
should be taken into consideration is that you can usually tighten the
licensing later on, while making it more liberal can be difficult.

-k
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell