[Scribus] this whole wiki thing - change of license

Craig Bradney cbradney
Fri Feb 4 22:02:36 CET 2005

On Friday 04 February 2005 21:06, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote:
> * Maciej Hanski <ma_han2000 at yahoo.de> [2005-02-04 15:08:07 +0100]:
> > 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
> > decision.
> >
> > br
> > Maciej
> >
> > P.S. Regardless what your decision will be - thank you for setting up the
> > Wiki so fast :)
> I would like to second Maciej's suggestions above. This issue should be
> decided openly and swiftly to maximise everyone's benefit. Starting open
> and allowing specific docs to carry a less free license per author's choice
> is, in my personal opinion, a better way as the other choice leads into the
> madness of never getting the permissions of all authors even if something
> becomes valuable enough for inclusion into the official documentation.
> By the way, I am not going to say anything about the license of the current
> official documentation as that is not under discussion, has been firmly
> decided earlier, and we should respect the choice of core developers. But
> wiki is a separate issue and needs to be decided now, while there is not
> much in it.

Ok.. I have changed it. Hope everyone who committed to the wiki so far is ok 
with it. Its now by-sa. HOWEVER.. this does NOT mean we will include ANY of 
the information within the official Scribus docs. 

The wiki is provided for users to post information they find out, make 
suggestions, make comments on information we place there (eg when we post the 
1.3 roadmap there) etc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20050204/bb235322/attachment.pgp 

More information about the scribus mailing list