Wiki Copyleft? Posted by DPic on Thu 09 of Apr, 2009 14:06 GMT posts: 40 Does the wiki use the GNU FDL or Crative Commons BY-SA? If not, why not? And If so, it should be made more clear .danny
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 10 of Apr, 2009 07:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > Does the wiki use the GNU FDL or Crative Commons BY-SA? If not, > why not? And If so, it should be made more clear It's never come up. Much of the content actually predates the current wiki and was hosted by a different person on a different machine, and there was no license then, so even if we said their was one now, most of the content wouldn't be under it. What was it you were planning on doing that required this? -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by DPic on Fri 10 of Apr, 2009 15:49 GMT posts: 40 Well it just seems appropriate. I'm all about the free culture movement and free content. =] Could we get permission for the non-copyleft content to be copylefted? On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:36, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org > wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > > Does the wiki use the GNU FDL or Crative Commons BY-SA? If not, > > why not? And If so, it should be made more clear > > It's never come up. Much of the content actually predates the > current wiki and was hosted by a different person on a different > machine, and there was no license then, so even if we said their was > one now, most of the content wouldn't be under it. > > What was it you were planning on doing that required this? > > -Robin > > -- > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/<http://www.digitalkingdom.org/%7Erlpowell/>*** > http://www.lojban.org/ > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > >
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 10 of Apr, 2009 20:12 GMT posts: 14214 >From all of the dozens of different authors, many of whom aren't around anymore? Good luck with that. For myself, I don't much like share-alike licenses, and would probably oppose any serious movement in that direction. In practice, I treat the content as public domain. We could put up a "by contributing, you agree to X" notice, the problem is all the extant content. -Robin On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:46:37AM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > Well it just seems appropriate. I'm all about the free culture movement and > free content. =] > > Could we get permission for the non-copyleft content to be copylefted? > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:36, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > > > Does the wiki use the GNU FDL or Crative Commons BY-SA? If not, > > > why not? And If so, it should be made more clear > > > > It's never come up. Much of the content actually predates the > > current wiki and was hosted by a different person on a different > > machine, and there was no license then, so even if we said their was > > one now, most of the content wouldn't be under it. > > > > What was it you were planning on doing that required this? > > > > -Robin > > > > -- > > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > > other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre > > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/<http://www.digitalkingdom.org/%7Erlpowell/>*** > > http://www.lojban.org/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > > > -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by DPic on Tue 14 of Apr, 2009 04:32 GMT posts: 40 I prefer share-alike, but i am OK without. Perhaps it could be voted on somehow? Adding something like "by contributing, you agree to CC-BY(-SA)" would be great, can we do that? That would effectively make any changes and new content copylefted which would be cool, but i'm not sure if that's kosher. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 16:10, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org > wrote: > >From all of the dozens of different authors, many of whom aren't > around anymore? > > Good luck with that. > > For myself, I don't much like share-alike licenses, and would > probably oppose any serious movement in that direction. > > In practice, I treat the content as public domain. > > We could put up a "by contributing, you agree to X" notice, the > problem is all the extant content. > > -Robin > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:46:37AM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > > Well it just seems appropriate. I'm all about the free culture movement > and > > free content. =] > > > > Could we get permission for the non-copyleft content to be copylefted? > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:36, Robin Lee Powell < > rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > > > > Does the wiki use the GNU FDL or Crative Commons BY-SA? If not, > > > > why not? And If so, it should be made more clear > > > > > > It's never come up. Much of the content actually predates the > > > current wiki and was hosted by a different person on a different > > > machine, and there was no license then, so even if we said their was > > > one now, most of the content wouldn't be under it. > > > > > > What was it you were planning on doing that required this? > > > > > > -Robin > > > > > > -- > > > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > > > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > > > other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre > > > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/< > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/%7Erlpowell/>*** > > > http://www.lojban.org/ > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > lojban-list-request@lojban.org > > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or > if > > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > > > > > > > -- > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > >
Posted by duck@kronkltd.net (Daniel E. Renfer) on Tue 14 of Apr, 2009 23:09 GMT Would it be fair to put up a notice saying from this point forward, anything contributed to this site will be bound by copyright X. If nobody steps forward in the next, say 3 months making a claim to any of the material, then it will also be put onder copyright X. You could post that notice on the site, on the lists, and optionally and emails of people you have that you know have contributed, but wouldn't be covered by the above. INAL, so I don't know if something like that would actually fly. It seems reasonable though. As far as the flavor of Copyright X, I say just use whatever Wikipedia uses. Danny Piccirillo <danny.piccirillo@gmail.com> writes: > I prefer share-alike, but i am OK without. Perhaps it could be voted on somehow? > > Adding something like "by contributing, you agree to CC-BY(-SA)" would be great, can we do that? > That would effectively make any changes and new content copylefted which would be cool, but i'm > not sure if that's kosher. > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 16:10, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > >From all of the dozens of different authors, many of whom aren't > around anymore? > > Good luck with that. > > For myself, I don't much like share-alike licenses, and would > probably oppose any serious movement in that direction. > > In practice, I treat the content as public domain. > > We could put up a "by contributing, you agree to X" notice, the > problem is all the extant content. > > -Robin > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Philip Newton on Wed 15 of Apr, 2009 08:52 GMT 2009/4/14 Daniel E. Renfer <duck@kronkltd.net>: > Would it be fair to put up a notice saying from this point forward, > anything contributed to this site will be bound by copyright X. If > nobody steps forward in the next, say 3 months making a claim to any of > the material, then it will also be put onder copyright X. > > You could post that notice on the site, on the lists, and optionally and > emails of people you have that you know have contributed, but wouldn't > be covered by the above. > > INAL, so I don't know if something like that would actually fly. It > seems reasonable though. I don't think you can simply take somebody else's content and say "Licence X now applies to this". > As far as the flavor of Copyright X, I say just use whatever Wikipedia uses. You may or may not know what Wikipedia may be changing their licence from GFDL to (IIRC) CC-BY-SA; there's a vote on whether to do so scheduled for sometime soon. mu'o mi'e .filip. -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by DPic on Thu 16 of Apr, 2009 02:07 GMT posts: 40 If we decide on share alike (or not) and to copyleft the wiki, who can add the notice to the site? On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:45, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>wrote: > 2009/4/14 Daniel E. Renfer <duck@kronkltd.net>: > > Would it be fair to put up a notice saying from this point forward, > > anything contributed to this site will be bound by copyright X. If > > nobody steps forward in the next, say 3 months making a claim to any of > > the material, then it will also be put onder copyright X. > > > > You could post that notice on the site, on the lists, and optionally and > > emails of people you have that you know have contributed, but wouldn't > > be covered by the above. > > > > INAL, so I don't know if something like that would actually fly. It > > seems reasonable though. > > I don't think you can simply take somebody else's content and say > "Licence X now applies to this". Yeah, we definitely can't do that, but the original idea of applying x copyleft to any *new* edits seems legal. It would just be messy because it would be impossible to sort out which material was old and still copyright protected. Still, better than nothing. > As far as the flavor of Copyright X, I say just use whatever Wikipedia > uses. > > > You may or may not know what Wikipedia may be changing their licence > from GFDL to (IIRC) CC-BY-SA; there's a vote on whether to do so > scheduled for sometime soon. Voting actually started a few days ago and my understanding is that they will be dual-licensing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1 mu'o mi'e .filip. > -- > Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > >
