discuss: Re: licence problems / wiki pages footer
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems / wiki pages footer
From:
jdd ####@####.####
Date:
3 Oct 2008 09:53:39 +0100
Message-Id: <48E5DD64.2000603@dodin.org>
Rick Moen a écrit :
> Here's one footer we might use. What the heck: I'll call it my
> suggestion -- though it's strictly off the top of my head (not the
> product of careful contemplation). Square brackets indicate where some
> text is also a hyperlink anchor.
>
>
> [ About LDP ] [ Manifesto ] [ Licensing ] [ Get Involved ]
I completely agree with you, in all this post...
part of the work I try to do using the HOWTOTemplate and the
wikiauthors' guide, but I have to admit I forgot completely to adress
the case of visitors modification to a doc :-(
just a note: we don't use mediawiki but MoinMoin wiki. Mediawiki have
a ggod feature: if one drop a word in the personal discussion page of
a member, next time this meber connects, hes advised he have a
massage. I don't know if there is something similar in Moin. yet to
investigate :-(
> there's a footer down at the bottom of the edit page. We can and should
> decide what _that_ footer says.
very good idea. Is it possible to have just a link to a wiki page?
> http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence . Jean-Daniel, I mean no
> disrespect of, or criticism of, your (and others') work on that page.
> There's nothing wrong with that page. However, as written, it doesn't
> answer the question of "If I edit existing HOWTO [foo], what licence
> am I granting?" In fact, if, say, we're talking about the Linux User
> Group HOWTO or any of many other non-GFDL HOWTOs, it's actively
> misleading.
no offense, in the contrary, you make a very usefull contribution.
>
> What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be a separate, different page
> -- one that might indeed also link to LdpWikiDefaultLicence, that
> clarifies the situation for people who edit existing documents.
absolutely
>
> Maybe LdpWikiDefaultLicence can be adapted and renamed to clarify that
> it specifically concerns _new_ documents, as opposed to edits of
> existing ones.
I modified the first sentence to read:
"All LDP Authors are urged to use this default licence on new
documents. To do so, use the HOWTO Template. See Editing LDP Documents
HOWTO if you want only to modify an existing document."
> anything that's aiming at formal static releases -- to either start out
> with a specific inline copyright statement and licence,
I add this:
"XXXX HOWTO, copyright (c) john Doe 2009"
on the HOTOTemplate
I didn't notice one had to use this line in *addition* to the licence
warning.
thanks
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM
