[Scribus] this whole wiki thing - change of license

[Oleksandr Moskalenko]

* Craig Bradney <cbradney at zip.com.au> [2005-02-04 22:02:36 +0100]:

> 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.
> 
> Craig


Great! Thank you Craig.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20050204/50be9fb7/attachment.pgp