[Scribus] this whole wiki thing
Fri Feb 4 15:08:07 CET 2005
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:54:22 +0100
Craig Bradney <cbradney at zip.com.au> wrote:
> On Friday 04 February 2005 12:17, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 11:48:06AM +0100, Craig Bradney wrote:
> > > On Friday 04 February 2005 11:24, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:30:09AM +0100, Craig Bradney wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 04 February 2005 08:44, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> > > > > > Other question: Why a by-nc instead of by-sa? It will get a
> > > > > > problem for publishers using parts of the docs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly the idea.
> > > >
> > > > Then we should include parts of the wiki into the Scribus
> > > > package.
> > >
> > > We already include Scribus documentation in the package.. which we
> > > intend to be different to that on the wiki.
> > Sorry, I meant:
> > Then we should not include parts of the wiki into the Scribus
> > package. The by-nc is considered incompatible by the Debian staff
> > and we surely would get problems with that.
> > And if we can't include the docs from the wiki, then the wiki makes
> > less sense.
> Its only Debian with its interesting ideas that does this. The Debian
> 1.2.1 version of Scribus already does not include the documentation
> but there is a documentation package in the non-free packages of
> Debian. All the other distros are quite happy to package as we do.
Hi Craig and Tom, hi all,
I also would be happier with the by-sa licence instead of by-nc, or at
least would like to have some more discussion on this topic before
deciding which one to choose. And this not only because of some distros'
copyright policies, but for two other reasons.
First of all, if the Scribus team wants to use the Scribus Wiki as some
sort of a "clearing house", before including some of its docs into the
official documentation (a very good idea, IMHO) - it would have to
comply with the terms of the licence, too, as anybody else would. That
means, IMHO, that in case of commercial use the Scribus team would
have to get the permission from the copyright holders, which are the
original authors of the docs, and not the side, who provides the webspace
and the wiki interface for them. Getting such permissions for each one of the
wiki docs from their authors can be really a nightmare, and I don't really
see the reason, why not starting with a more liberal licence in first place. This is a
situation, where nobody gains.
Secondly, if we want to get as many users as possible to share their
knowledge/wisdom/experience, we should avoid any discouragment about
the licence issues. If somebody is willing to spent some hours/days of
his time on writing or updating a Scribus howto, he should also be
allowed to make commercial use of it. This should be in my opinion the
default situation. If some authors want to write their particular
contribution using explicitely the by-nc licence, they should allowed
to do so -- but this should be an exception from the rule.
This is why I'm kindly asking for reconsidering once again the licence
P.S. Regardless what your decision will be - thank you for setting up the Wiki so fast :)
More information about the scribus