discuss: August summary
Subject:
Re: [discuss] August summary
From:
Randy Kramer ####@####.####
Date:
3 Sep 2005 19:35:54 -0000
Message-Id: <200509031535.01300.rhkramer@gmail.com>
On Friday 02 September 2005 02:32 am, jdd wrote:
> ####@####.#### wrote:
> > Was there any sort of outcome/resolution on the licensing issues?
> >
> > Is using a wiki legally feasible with TLDP content?
>
> what I proposed was a voluntary athors system, in this case,
> the authors rules the licence. But there has been a hudge
> dicsussion, it's probably better to loook at the list archive.
> jdd
Thanks for responding! (I was going to have to go back in the archives and
refresh my memory on the discussion, this has, I think, triggered my memory
sufficiently.)
Another proposal was to deal with abandoned HOWTOs (where the author can not
be found).
For such documents, the thought was to "publish" the exisitng HOWTO on read
only (non-modifiable) pages, and allow for comments and a rewrite to be
created on new pages ("near", in some sense, to the pages of the original
HOWTO--maybe on a MediaWiki these would be the discussion pages corresponding
to the pages of the original HOWTO).
While I think in general an approach along these lines can be legal (more
below), I was hoping to hear some confirmation or discussion on that
point--how much "separation" would we need to remain legal.
To elaborate a little, in the software world, when desired / needed code is
encumbered by a copyright, one way forward is to rewrite that software. My
understanding is that a similar possibility exists for written documents,
but, I'm not sure to what extent it has to be a "clean room" rewrite.
So, am I totally off base?
Randy Kramer
