Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Default License for the Wiki [was Re: [hackers-il] Our Shiny New Wiki!]

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    ... Replying to myself. I am bringing this topic here. What do you wish to be the default license of the Wiki s text? You can choose from: 1. The Creative
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 12 8:22 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thursday 12 August 2004 12:18, Shlomi Fish wrote:
      > [2] -
      > I suggest we discuss it here. My favourite is the Creative Commons
      > Attribution only license. It may be a little too unrestrictive (i.e: not
      > too GPL-like) for some. What would you prefer?

      Replying to myself. I am bringing this topic here. What do you wish to be the
      default license of the Wiki's text? You can choose from:

      1. The Creative Commons Licenses:

      http://creativecommons.org/

      (some of them not really free as in speech)

      2. GNU FDL - known to have some legal problems, not acceptable in Debian.
      (<sigh />)

      3. Open Publication License - don't know too much about it.

      4. A software license. (GPL/LGPL/Artistic/MIT X11). I'm not sure if they make
      too much sense for plaintext, but they could be used.

      Note that this is just the default license. An author can specify at the top
      or the bottom that he uses a different one.

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish


      --

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Homepage: http://shlomif.il.eu.org/

      Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
    • Alon Altman
      ... I vote for the BY-SA (Attribution Share Alike) creative commons license. ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ). It is a free (as in speech)
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 12 9:55 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:

        > On Thursday 12 August 2004 12:18, Shlomi Fish wrote:
        > > [2] -
        > > I suggest we discuss it here. My favourite is the Creative Commons
        > > Attribution only license. It may be a little too unrestrictive (i.e: not
        > > too GPL-like) for some. What would you prefer?
        >

        I vote for the BY-SA (Attribution Share Alike) creative commons license.
        ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ). It is a free (as in
        speech) license, but still leaves control with the author. Also, it is
        compatible with the attribution only license that Shlomi wanted, so he could
        use it if he pleases.

        If anyone here prefers the BY-NC-SA license, it could be used as well, but I
        think the NC limit should not be imposed.

        Alon

        --
        This message was sent by Alon Altman (alon@...) ICQ:1366540
        GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt
        Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        -=[ Random Fortune ]=-
        I can't drive 55.
        I'm looking forward to not being able to drive 65, either.
      • Orna Agmon
        ... I vote for creative commons BY-SA as well. Orna. -- Orna Agmon http://vipe.stud.technion.ac.il/~ladypine/ ICQ: 348759096
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 13 1:47 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Alon Altman wrote:

          > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:55:25 +0300 (IDT)
          > From: Alon Altman <alon@...>
          > Reply-To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com
          > To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: Default License for the Wiki [was Re: [hackers-il] Our Shiny
          > New Wiki!]
          >
          > On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:
          >
          > > On Thursday 12 August 2004 12:18, Shlomi Fish wrote:
          > > > [2] -
          > > > I suggest we discuss it here. My favourite is the Creative Commons
          > > > Attribution only license. It may be a little too unrestrictive (i.e: not
          > > > too GPL-like) for some. What would you prefer?
          > >
          >
          > I vote for the BY-SA (Attribution Share Alike) creative commons license.
          > ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ). It is a free (as in
          > speech) license, but still leaves control with the author. Also, it is
          > compatible with the attribution only license that Shlomi wanted, so he could
          > use it if he pleases.
          >
          > If anyone here prefers the BY-NC-SA license, it could be used as well, but I
          > think the NC limit should not be imposed.
          >
          > Alon
          >
          >

          I vote for creative commons BY-SA as well.
          Orna.
          --
          Orna Agmon http://vipe.stud.technion.ac.il/~ladypine/
          ICQ: 348759096
        • Tal Rotbart
          Same here. On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:47:25 +0300 (IDT), Orna Agmon ... -- /************************************************ Tal redbeard Rotbart Software Wizard
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 15 1:59 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Same here.

            On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:47:25 +0300 (IDT), Orna Agmon
            <ladypine@...> wrote:
            > On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Alon Altman wrote:
            >
            > > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:55:25 +0300 (IDT)
            > > From: Alon Altman <alon@...>
            > > Reply-To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com
            > > To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: Re: Default License for the Wiki [was Re: [hackers-il] Our Shiny
            > > New Wiki!]
            > >
            > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:
            > >
            > > > On Thursday 12 August 2004 12:18, Shlomi Fish wrote:
            > > > > [2] -
            > > > > I suggest we discuss it here. My favourite is the Creative Commons
            > > > > Attribution only license. It may be a little too unrestrictive (i.e: not
            > > > > too GPL-like) for some. What would you prefer?
            > > >
            > >
            > > I vote for the BY-SA (Attribution Share Alike) creative commons license.
            > > ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ). It is a free (as in
            > > speech) license, but still leaves control with the author. Also, it is
            > > compatible with the attribution only license that Shlomi wanted, so he could
            > > use it if he pleases.
            > >
            > > If anyone here prefers the BY-NC-SA license, it could be used as well, but I
            > > think the NC limit should not be imposed.
            > >
            > > Alon
            > >
            > >
            >
            > I vote for creative commons BY-SA as well.
            > Orna.
            > --
            > Orna Agmon http://vipe.stud.technion.ac.il/~ladypine/
            > ICQ: 348759096
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >


            --
            /************************************************

            Tal 'redbeard' Rotbart
            Software Wizard

            eMail: redbeard of gmail dot com
            Tel: +972-2-671-6178
            Mobile: +972-52-896-5025

            Snail mail:
            Klozner 7/2
            Jerusalem 93388
            ISRAEL

            ************************************************/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.