discuss: Thread: default licence

We have to choose a licence for the wiki. The boilerplate licence is 
not fitted for such support.

The best choice is probably the FDL licence. A second choice is the 
creative common by-sa. The FDL should then be noted in the footer of 
any wiki page.

I think we should also add the following or something similar:

"LDP documents have to name an author. On the wiki this author is the 
original author of the document if identified and the maintainer, that 
is the people in charge of validating the wiki page before moving it 
to the mirrored site. No author name nor revision history line must be 
included in the document without the prior consent of at least one of 
these two people. Users making changes in a wiki page are identified 
in the History of the document and are encouraged to fill they own 
wiki page.

The personal wiki page of any subscriber can hold a small curriculum 
vitae, but no advertisement for any non LDP commercial "

the goal of this note is to prevent users to make advertisement for 
they own name/web site for any typo corrected on a page...

advice needed!!

thanks
jdj
-- 
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM

in my opinion we should accept _only_ GFDL.

S.

Sergiusz Pawlowicz a écrit :
> in my opinion we should accept _only_ GFDL.

why not?

but this is a major change in the LDP policy and may cause problems 
with olders HOWTOs

of course it should be much easier for us :-))

jdd


-- 
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Sergiusz Pawlowicz
####@####.#### wrote:
> in my opinion we should accept _only_ GFDL.

Agreed.

-- 
Robert Spencer

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM, jdd ####@####.#### wrote:
> Sergiusz Pawlowicz a écrit :
>>
>> in my opinion we should accept _only_ GFDL.
>
> why not?
>
> but this is a major change in the LDP policy and may cause problems with
> olders HOWTOs

are there many non-GFDL docs in our repo?

-- 
http://pawlowicz.name/

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:05:25AM +0200, jdd wrote:
> We have to choose a licence for the wiki. The boilerplate licence is not 
> fitted for such support.
>
> The best choice is probably the FDL licence. A second choice is the  
> creative common by-sa. The FDL should then be noted in the footer of any 
> wiki page.
>
> I think we should also add the following or something similar:
>
> "LDP documents have to name an author. On the wiki this author is the  
> original author of the document if identified and the maintainer, that  
> is the people in charge of validating the wiki page before moving it to 
> the mirrored site. No author name nor revision history line must be  
> included in the document without the prior consent of at least one of  
> these two people. Users making changes in a wiki page are identified in 
> the History of the document and are encouraged to fill they own wiki 
> page.

The above would not be in the license.  It's rules regarding what we
accept.  If it doesn't meet our rules, it would be removed after
giving reasonable notice to the maintainer.

There may be more than one author.  For example, if someone takes over
a doc and extensively revises it so that much of it has changed, then
there are two authors.  In some cases, there is so much change that
the original author is not really a co-author anymore and should not
be listed as an author, but still needs to be mentioned and given
credit for initiating the doc.

If the original author is not keeping up with the subject of the doc,
then he shouldn't have authority to give consent to a revison (add a
line to the revision history).  Perhaps a majority of the original
authors of LDP docs. are like this.  They wrote a doc, but haven't
kept up-to-date on the subject of the doc and some can't be contacted.
So I think that just the current maintainer should be allowed to do
this and perhaps someone the maintainer designates.

>
> The personal wiki page of any subscriber can hold a small curriculum  
> vitae, but no advertisement for any non LDP commercial "
>
> the goal of this note is to prevent users to make advertisement for they 
> own name/web site for any typo corrected on a page...
>
> advice needed!!
>
> thanks
> jdj
> -- 
> http://www.dodin.net
> http://valerie.dodin.org
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>
			David Lawyer

David Lawyer a écrit :

> The above would not be in the license.

agree. It should be in a page linked from the footer of each page
(manifesto?)

> There may be more than one author.

yes and no. It's veryu difficult to deal with several people. So one
of the authors have to be shown as the main author, responsible at
least of the licence of the hole doc

> there are two authors.  In some cases, there is so much change that
> the original author is not really a co-author anymore and should not
> be listed as an author, but still needs to be mentioned and given
> credit for initiating the doc.

this can only be done if the licence allows it (or if the original
author accepts)

jdd
-- 
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 08:54:01AM +0200, jdd wrote:
> David Lawyer a ?crit :
> 
> > The above would not be in the license.
> 
> agree. It should be in a page linked from the footer of each page
> (manifesto?)
> 
> > There may be more than one author.
> 
> yes and no. It's veryu difficult to deal with several people. So one
> of the authors have to be shown as the main author, responsible at
> least of the licence of the hole doc

OK, but that persons may also be the maintainer.  I think most of our
docs just give an author and if they are being maintained, then the
author is the maintainer.  So since maintainers are not specified,
shouldn't we just stick to author(s).  Of course it's a lot simpler to
just deal with one author, but in a few cases there are more than one
and to complicate matters further, some (all all) the authors may be
inactive or even dead.  Where one remains, the others may have never
given that one person ownership of the doc so that one person can't
change the license legally.

> 
> > there are two authors.  In some cases, there is so much change that
> > the original author is not really a co-author anymore and should not
> > be listed as an author, but still needs to be mentioned and given
> > credit for initiating the doc.
> 
> this can only be done if the licence allows it (or if the original
> author accepts)

True. I was thinking of this at the time I wrote the above but didn't
bother to add it.
			David Lawyer