OMG wiki license
jon at rejon.org
Sun Jan 28 04:16:22 CET 2007
Ok, well I think there is some need for speed for doing this so all future contributions are legally clear. Ok, lets shoot for the end of the day monday to have converted the pages.
Also, we need a wikiable gnu fdl statement to use that we can put on each page that is reworked.
Dave, woule you like to take a stab at that?
From: "David Schlesinger" <David.Schlesinger at palmsource.com>
To: "Richard Franks" <spontificus at gmail.com>; "OpenMoko" <community at lists.openmoko.org>
Sent: 1/27/2007 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: OMG wiki license
This all seems reasonable and appropriate as a way to move forward...
In fact, there's no particular real-world danger of a "legal case". First of all, no one stands to make or lose any money on the content in question, so any action would be purely symbolic.
Secondly, the way to start if one wished to exercise one's control over one's own material would be to send a "cease and desist" message to whomever ran the wiki to have the material taken down or better-attributed or whatever...
From: community-bounces at lists.openmoko.org on behalf of Richard Franks
Sent: Sat 1/27/2007 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: OMG wiki license
On 1/27/07, Jon Phillips <jon at rejon.org> wrote:
> > I don't see a legal case being made out of this.
> Right, but better to protect ourselves. Also, companies, like
> FIC/OpenMoko have to take every precaution. So, if we want our content
> included, we need to be cautious as well.
Agreed - but I think the risk here is so minimal, that we can decide
upon a license and push the deadline back one week, which would give
contributors a chance to add the new license to their own pages.
* We may get revised/improved/edited content by increasing the number
of people involved.
* Intent or nuance will not be accidentally changed.
> I also thought about going through and deleting a page, putting a GNU
> FDL 1.2 statement at the top of the page, and then summarizing/redoing
> the old content. This way, any future contributions are protected.
> Cool? Yet again, I propose we do this at 11:59 PM PST SAT JAN 27 so we
> can knock this out.
> What do you think?
Unless we have any parties - FIC, individual contributors or editors -
who feel that extending that deadline by one week would be putting
them under additional risk, then I'd say +1 week is an appropriate
response to a pragmatic estimate of the extreme unlikelihood of the
occurrence or significance of the threat.
OpenMoko community mailing list
community at lists.openmoko.org
More information about the community