discuss: Thread: KWiki

Hello,

I need your advice in the following:

I maintain the PHP-Nuke HOWTO. I have been asked if it is possible to transform it
to a Wiki clone called KWiki for others to take as a basis and expand it on their
own with whatever extra information they deem necessary. I have two questions /
concerns on this:

- Does GFDL allow this? For every Wiki? I think Wikis require their users to abandon
their copyrights. I cannot do that. On the other side, I have seen GFDLed Wikis,
like wikipedia.org. Do I have to impose the restriction that the KWiki be under
GFDL, like Wikipedia imposes its users to put their contributions under the GFDL?
What's LDP's answer on requests like this one?

- The PHP-Nuke HOWTO is written in LyX, transformed to SGML, then to the other
formats. What tools are available to transform a LyX / SGML / HTML document to a
Wiki / KWiki format?

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

--
--
Regards

Chris Karakas
http://www.karakas-online.de

Hello,

I need your advice in the following:

I maintain the PHP-Nuke HOWTO. I have been asked if it is possible to transform it
to a Wiki clone called KWiki for others to take as a basis and expand it on their
own with whatever extra information they deem necessary. I have two questions /
concerns on this:

- Does GFDL allow this? For every Wiki? I think Wikis require their users to abandon
their copyrights. I cannot do that. On the other side, I have seen GFDLed Wikis,
like wikipedia.org. Do I have to impose the restriction that the KWiki be under
GFDL, like Wikipedia imposes its users to put their contributions under the GFDL?
What's LDP's answer on requests like this one?

- The PHP-Nuke HOWTO is written in LyX, transformed to SGML, then to the other
formats. What tools are available to transform a LyX / SGML / HTML document to a
Wiki / KWiki format?

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

--
--
Regards

Chris Karakas
http://www.karakas-online.de

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:35:50PM +0000, Chris Karakas wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I need your advice in the following:
> 
> I maintain the PHP-Nuke HOWTO. I have been asked if it is possible to
> transform it to a Wiki clone called KWiki for others to take as a
> basis and expand it on their own with whatever extra information they
> deem necessary. I have two questions / concerns on this:
> 
> - Does GFDL allow this? For every Wiki? I think Wikis require their
> users to abandon their copyrights. I cannot do that. On the other
> side, I have seen GFDLed Wikis, like wikipedia.org. Do I have to
> impose the restriction that the KWiki be under GFDL, like Wikipedia
> imposes its users to put their contributions under the GFDL?  What's
> LDP's answer on requests like this one?

Every copyright must have a copyright owner.  So a wiki, if the
contributors are anonymous, has a problem.  All the contributors are the
copyright owners, but who are they?  One could just say copyright by
anonymous.  But copyright law doesn't provide for anonymous copyright.
So if one states this, is is copyrighted?  Perhaps not.  If it's not
copyrighted, it's in the public domain and there is no point in having a
License since it's not valid.

So unless one can say: Copyright by <list of names>, then it's best that
it be in the public domain.  Another approach would be to require that
"authors" who modify a wiki assign their copyright to you.  But that's
giving their work to you and you could change the License and make it
non-free.  So I think it would be setting the wrong tone to ask people
to do this.

So it seems there is no good solution to this question.

			David Lawyer

David,

thanks for the reply. Let me see if I understand it correctly:

- Wikis either have a copyright by a list of owners, or no copyright at all.
- A TLDP HOWTO is under the FDL.
- If a Wiki uses a TLDP HOWTO then...

- ...if the Wiki can track the conributors, then we have a complete list of
copyright owners, the Wiki is a derivative work of the HOWTO original, thus the
contributors have to set their contributions under the FDL too.

- ...if the Wiki cannot track the contributors, then there is no copyright on the
contributions and the contributions are under the public domain. Then we have a
derivative work that is made of a copyrighted FDL part (the HOWTO) and a public
domain part. In which case the whole Wiki should be set under the FDL.

Is that correct? I am still lost, because the intention is to use a HOWTO in a Wiki
and neither me (translator and maintainer) and presumably nor the author and the
other translators would like to abandon their copyrights on the HOWTO and put it in
the public domain. What do I have to tell the Wiki people? Use the HOWTO? Not use
it? Is the FDL obligatory for the Wiki if it uses (parts of) the HOWTO?

Questions over questions...

--
--
Regards

Chris Karakas
http://www.karakas-online.de

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:35:50PM +0000, Chris Karakas wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I need your advice in the following:
> 
> I maintain the PHP-Nuke HOWTO. I have been asked if it is possible to
> transform it to a Wiki clone called KWiki for others to take as a
> basis and expand it on their own with whatever extra information they
> deem necessary. I have two questions / concerns on this:
> 
> - Does GFDL allow this? For every Wiki? I think Wikis require their
> users to abandon their copyrights. I cannot do that. On the other
> side, I have seen GFDLed Wikis, like wikipedia.org. Do I have to
> impose the restriction that the KWiki be under GFDL, like Wikipedia
> imposes its users to put their contributions under the GFDL?  What's
> LDP's answer on requests like this one?

Every copyright must have a copyright owner.  So a wiki, if the
contributors are anonymous, has a problem.  All the contributors are the
copyright owners, but who are they?  One could just say copyright by
anonymous.  But copyright law doesn't provide for anonymous copyright.
So if one states this, is is copyrighted?  Perhaps not.  If it's not
copyrighted, it's in the public domain and there is no point in having a
License since it's not valid.

So unless one can say: Copyright by <list of names>, then it's best that
it be in the public domain.  Another approach would be to require that
"authors" who modify a wiki assign their copyright to you.  But that's
giving their work to you and you could change the License and make it
non-free.  So I think it would be setting the wrong tone to ask people
to do this.

So it seems there is no good solution to this question.

			David Lawyer

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/


Boundary_(ID_rx92GXyYVPKC5fYTzGL6VQ)

On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 18:02, Chris Karakas wrote:
> - Wikis either have a copyright by a list of owners, or no copyright at all.
> - A TLDP HOWTO is under the FDL.
> - If a Wiki uses a TLDP HOWTO then...

I just wanted to mention that not all TLDP HOWTOs use the GFDL, but it
sounds like this is, so far, the license you're interested in.

> - ...if the Wiki can track the conributors, then we have a complete list of
> copyright owners, the Wiki is a derivative work of the HOWTO original, thus the
> contributors have to set their contributions under the FDL too.
> 
> - ...if the Wiki cannot track the contributors, then there is no copyright on the
> contributions and the contributions are under the public domain. Then we have a
> derivative work that is made of a copyrighted FDL part (the HOWTO) and a public
> domain part. In which case the whole Wiki should be set under the FDL.

If the document was GFDL and included a section listing ALL the
contributors, I'd think that would suffice.  Maybe you could make a
section specifically for that and ask that all the contributors add
their name and contribution to the list.  This way the document goes
into the public domain retaining the copyrights of all the
contributors.  Would it be very difficult for you to do something like
that?

I don't know if it's the correct approach/solution, but it is the most
efficient way I can think of to make sure everyone gets mentioned. 
Maybe make that a rule of contributing on the doc - the contributor
needs to add their name to the list in whatever section is designated
for that purpose.  

Hopefully this gives you an option, if nothing else!

Tab

-- 
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)

 > - ...if the Wiki cannot track the contributors, then there is no 
copyright on the
 > contributions and the contributions are under the public domain.

The Software Release Practice HOWTO <http://tinyurl.com/nukf> notes that 
some open-source authors choose to assign the copyright to the Free 
Software Foundation. You don't give up much that way because the GPL 
protects everyone's rights, including yours.

Why not do the same for the Wiki? Rather than assigning the copyright to 
yourself, assign it to the Free Software Foundation. Then tell everyone 
that the content of the Wiki is released under the GFDL (or whatever 
license you want), and they can take the content and do whatever the 
license allows them to do - but by storing any of their content on the 
Wiki, they agree to assign the copyright to the FSF. That way you don't 
have to worry about listing the copyright owners.

-- 
   Well-known spam nemesis Ron Scelson filed for bankruptcy earlier this
   year [2003], and a review of bankruptcy documents shows he owes
   Bell South $56,463 for "circuits" and Cable & Wireless another
   $4,407 as his "Internet provider."
        - Quoted from MSNBC's "Who profits from spam?"
          http://www.msnbc.com/news/940490.asp?0dm=B214T&cp1=1

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:34:22PM +0200, Dan Richter wrote:
> Why not do the same for the Wiki? Rather than assigning the copyright to 
> yourself, assign it to the Free Software Foundation.

If you're doing that you should make sure to ask the FSF for permission,
and fill out proper assignment papers. By assigning copyright to them
you're handing over legal responsibility to them to enforce the licence,
so they should be told about it and have proper papers so that they can
enforce it effectively.

FWIW I think that the need for formal assignments demanded by the FSF
would be too onerous for a Wiki.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                  ####@####.####

> On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 18:02, Chris Karakas wrote:
> > - Wikis either have a copyright by a list of owners, or no copyright at all.
> > - A TLDP HOWTO is under the FDL.
> > - If a Wiki uses a TLDP HOWTO then...
> 
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:24:54AM -0700, Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> I just wanted to mention that not all TLDP HOWTOs use the GFDL, but it
> sounds like this is, so far, the license you're interested in.
> 
> > - ...if the Wiki can track the contributors, then we have a complete
> > list of copyright owners, the Wiki is a derivative work of the HOWTO
> > original, thus the contributors have to set their contributions
> > under the FDL too.
> > 
[snip]
> 
> If the document was GFDL and included a section listing ALL the
> contributors, I'd think that would suffice.  Maybe you could make a
> section specifically for that and ask that all the contributors add
> their name and contribution to the list.  This way the document goes
> into the public domain retaining the copyrights of all the
> contributors.

Why does it go into the public domain?  It just stays under GFDL with a
long list of copyright owners.  This should work, but each contributor
needs to know that by contributing, they are adding their names to the
list of copyright owners.

[snip]

			David Lawyer