On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 18:07, Martin Bagge / brother <brother@bsnet.se> wrote:
I see no need at all to relicense the wiki to anything by now.

There may not be a pressing need now. However, if there is ever going to be a change (and we don't want to stay with GFDL 1.2 forever, right?) then the sooner it is started, the easier it will be.

As the wiki has been open for edits from anonymous I think we will have
problems contacting all editors. Some of the edits can probably be
matched to core contributors and ruled out. The other parts have to be
examined to settle if the texts are still in use or have been replaced
by someone who would like to relicense.

This is true.

If it's a small contribution, it probably doesn't matter, as copyright doesn't apply to just one or two sentences. (I've never heard anyone else raise this in the license context, but it makes sense to me.) It's worth saying that the licenses are basically the same in intent, and I doubt the contributors would mind. Note these two posts I made, describing  attorneys' opinions which support this idea:
  1. [cc-community] Changing *almost* compatible licenses  
  2. [cc-community] Changing *almost* compatible licenses  
I don't know if that would be different in different countries. Anyway, the point is we don't need to get too concerned with removing every last anonymous edit, as long as a reasonable effort is made to note which material is under the new license, and which is not.

I'd suggest that as a transition measure, the wiki is switched to the dual license, but old pages or sections which are mainly GFDL 1.2 are kept and flagged as such. Eventually they will be rewritten or become obsolete. Users who agree to relicense their old contributions would be listed, and hopefully that would account for most of the content. (Here's an idea, but I don't know if it's needed: A note could be added to the license that when a contributor edits a section marked under a certain license, e.g. GFDL 1.2, their contributions are automatically licensed under that license as well as the wiki's default license. That may be stating the obvious, though. Anyway, it's better to edit outside such sections, to create documentation which does not have GFDL 1.2 content mixed in.)

Sorry for being so long-winded!

Chris


(I have more or less never been authenticated to the english wiki while
doing edits, as an example =))
--
brother

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Lxde-list mailing list
Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list



--
Chris Watkins

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es