Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: the wiki (maybe the site) and CC
I think this is a bit restrictive, unnecessarily so. What's up with not making derivative works? Wouldn't changing a wiki page itself be creating a derivative work if you're building off a previous page? Also, I have no objection to my contributions anyway being used for commercial purposes, whether by the Neo/J developers or anyone else for that matter... Nor do I seek attribution btw.
But I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for this particular license. I think some sort of CC license isn't a bad idea.
w
jakeOSX wrote:
I would like to put the wiki under a creative commons liscence.
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: the wiki (maybe the site) and CC
Waldo wrote:
I think this is a bit restrictive, unnecessarily so. What's up with not making derivative works? Wouldn't changing a wiki page itself be creating a derivative work if you're building off a previous page?
jakeOSX wrote:
this would apply to others using it, not internal changes to the wiki.
I think the latter addresses the former, right? Moreover, if someone wants to create a derivative (say, use our OOo and Neo/OOo tips in an "OOo on Mac OS X wiki"), they could ask for permission.
So I really don't have a problem with this particular license, though I haven't read through the official legalese or examined any alternatives. I think it's "restrictive" enough to protect us from, say, a Luxuriousity, but pretty much free to reprint, etc., otherwise.
The only thorny issue there is copyright assignment, since we're all contributing and editing and updating each other's stuff (and in some instances copying/editing someone else's tip from trinity into the wiki). Do we need a JCA for the wiki ?
the asking was the big thing. mainly if someone decides to write a book, manual, etc, on Neo (or OO.o) and uses our wiki, i want us to be cited, AND they can at least ask before they do it (this license says you can do that if you ask)
i'll look into the derivative parts, basically i just want people to ask before they use the information there for other things.
as for the copyright as a whole for the wiki, never thought of that.. maybe we should put in that someone, ed, patrick, me, whoever, can speak for the wiki as a whole? hmm... (processing........................)
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:35 pm Post subject:
Personally I don't have opinions on documentation licenses, but it's obviously a rather large problem with open source projects and resources. Here's my take on the current situations:
This site and its forums are under the "copyright owned by poster" metholodogy, so technically nothing can be reproduced on other sites without contacting the original author of the comments. This, of course, may be impossible for some of the anonymous posts.
The NeoJ pages on planamesa are under a copyleft form of licensing, very liberal "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved."
The main Neo site in the past didn't have an explicit copyright notice on it, so I guess it fell under copyright "me".
The specifications I've written up are under the PDL license from OOo/Sun. It's a bit long (hell, turned out to be longer then a lot of the docs it was covering!). That license was developed by the OOo guys after there were some complaints revolving around the GNU FDL license...may have been due to SISSL incompatibilities or something, I don't really know. I'm not up on documentation licenses like I am on various software licenses.
Some of the dictionaries, translation texts, and online help of OOo that are not in the repository were actually placed under GPL, but it's unclear whether GPL can really be applied to works that aren't "source code"
Our source code and, effectively, everything in our CVS repository is covered by GPL licensing only.
"NeoOffice" is itself a registered trademark, actually a word mark, so when cited it should be properly indicated as a US registered trademark. Trademark law is separate from documentation licensing.
Knows that clears absolutely nothing up, but that's kind of my state of knowledge at this point in time.
Well... the way I think it works is that every contributor maintains copyright over the portion they wrote. If the license is "sharealike", then it's GPL-ish in the viral sense. But licenses like this only are relevant in terms of republishing or distributing the work. So I don't know if it could force a contributor to relicense your material under the same provisions if you yourself aren't publishing anything... if that makes sense.
W
jakeOSX wrote:
the asking was the big thing. mainly if someone decides to write a book, manual, etc, on Neo (or OO.o) and uses our wiki, i want us to be cited, AND they can at least ask before they do it (this license says you can do that if you ask)
i'll look into the derivative parts, basically i just want people to ask before they use the information there for other things.
as for the copyright as a whole for the wiki, never thought of that.. maybe we should put in that someone, ed, patrick, me, whoever, can speak for the wiki as a whole? hmm... (processing........................)
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:08 am Post subject:
Note that, of course, any of the copyrights or licenses are still trumped by "fair use" of contents. For example, reprinting a couple of sentences out of a post is probably fine but replicating an entire thread or FAQ listing is not.
As to the viral nature of any chosen license, I think that may have been the sticking point between OOo's community needs and the GNU FDL, particularly the Section 3 regarding the restrictions on copying in quantity.
Note though that if we do wind up choosing to put forum posts and wiki edits under some type of license, it would probably add some additional burden on wiki and forums in order to meet licensing restrictions. Essentially, we'd have to add a "click-through contract" for any new content covered by the license. The plan as I can think of:
- Wiki would need to have some type of registered user tracking implemented. Unsure if it's feasible.
- Already registered posters/modifiers to forums/wiki would be required to click-through an agreement that their contributed content is covered by the chosen license on their first post or edit after license is chosen. This gets recorded in our database; subsequent posts or edits wouldn't need agreement if the lookup is succesful.
- Anonymous posters would need to always see a click-through agreement that their contribution is subject to the chosen license each time they post.
I'm pretty certain if we did that click through tracking that all new content would be kosher. We'd need to track down authors of previous content if we want to "re-license" it, thol.
I personally use the by-nc-sa license for my own wiki (there's nothing for NeoOffice on it, so I haven't given the adress to anyone here). I use sharealike so that people can copy, but have say who wrote the original.
I see the point for no-derivatives if you want to keep the content in one place and make it a reference work - nobody is allowed to fork it. Otherwise, share-alike is fine with me.
As for finding out who edited a page, that is provided for: just click on 'view document history'. Wikis are nice .
As for investing the copright into one 'representative', just put a notice on the login page that someone is in charge and that you agree by posting..
As for finding out who edited a page, that is provided for: just click on 'view document history'. Wikis are nice .
The problem I am finding with some pages is that I've edited them too many times! Adding things, fixing my errors, cleaning up a bit of awkward language I didn't see when editing before, etc., such that now I can no longer see the early history no matter what I fiddle in the preferences...just a long string of sardissons (There's also the case where we've moved part of a page written by someone else to a completely new page, in which case the original author(s)/history is lost....
Plus for the first week or so I was editing stuff just as "anonymous"
Isn't there an implied agreement when you edit a wiki that your contribution becomes part of the wiki, and that you by virtue of the fact that you've edited a page, have agreed to allow it to be published-- at least on the wiki...
I dunno-- a click-through for wiki modifications seems silly, but I guess these are the crazy times we're living in...
W
sardisson wrote:
ovvldc wrote:
As for finding out who edited a page, that is provided for: just click on 'view document history'. Wikis are nice .
The problem I am finding with some pages is that I've edited them too many times! Adding things, fixing my errors, cleaning up a bit of awkward language I didn't see when editing before, etc., such that now I can no longer see the early history no matter what I fiddle in the preferences...just a long string of sardissons (There's also the case where we've moved part of a page written by someone else to a completely new page, in which case the original author(s)/history is lost....
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:36 pm Post subject:
It probably does seem like overkill. I'm just trying to imagine a "worst case" scenario Some of the more complicated licenses like FDL and PDL have enough conditions attached to them that we may want to make people aware of them should we decide to use them.
Isn't there an implied agreement when you edit a wiki that your contribution becomes part of the wiki, and that you by virtue of the fact that you've edited a page, have agreed to allow it to be published-- at least on the wiki...
That's my feeling; I forget what happens when you click on the edit link for the first time, though.
Waldo wrote:
I dunno-- a click-through for wiki modifications seems silly, but I guess these are the crazy times we're living in...
If it's not too difficult to edit the code of the "Edit" template, the text could just be inserted there and seen on all attempts to edit--no extra click needed--and by performing an edit, you accept whatever our "conditions" are.
If it's not too difficult to edit the code of the "Edit" template, the text could just be inserted there and seen on all attempts to edit--no extra click needed--and by performing an edit, you accept whatever our "conditions" are.
Smokey
I bet that would work. Just something like
'By editing this wiki content and clicking on the "Edit" button below, I understand and agree that I am also permanently transfering all applicable copyright ownership and privilages related to my changes to [WHOMEVER]."
That way, [WHOMEVER] can ultimately determine the licensing. As long as [WHOMEVER] chooses a license that doesn't suck, I think I'd be happy.
The one thing I'm not sure about is whether there needs to be any kind of compensation to make the copyright transfer legal. Probably not though, but of course, I'm not a lawyer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
?
.
(There's also the case where we've moved part of a page written by someone else to a completely new page, in which case the original author(s)/history is lost....
Some of the more complicated licenses like FDL and PDL have enough conditions attached to them that we may want to make people aware of them should we decide to use them.