FAIwiki - proposal for an other License but Creative Commons - was: Re: FAIwiki Copyrights

[Dominik Kasprzyk]

Firstly, it seems to me there's two different issues with the wiki copyright.  The first is that there will be documentation information on how FAI should be used, how to fix problems etc and the second seems to be example code for FAI scripts.

Would it be too wrong for me to suggest that we separate these two different purposes with two different licences?  Because the Creative Commons licence seems fairly reasonable to me in terms of documentation but too restrictive for code, yet it would be nice to have some control over the documentation information we each contribute.

Actually, the only real issue I can think where copyright really affects documentation in a way significantly differently than the code is if FAI became popular enough that a book were to be published for profit from information on the wiki on how to use it.  

				Dominik.

P.S.  Henning Sprang, as you seem to be more or less chairman of this discussion, I'll leave it to you to foward to legal or not if you think it's interesting or relevant.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:48:32 +0200
Henning Sprang <henning_sprang at gmx.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 22:48 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Hi debian-legal, hi fai :-)
> > 
> > On Friday 05 August 2005 17:29, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > > | Under the following conditions:
> > > | by
> > > | Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
> > > | author or licensor.
> > > Sounds reasonable to me.
> > 
> > unfortunatly not be me: i hereby request you to praise my name three times in 
> > capital letters _and_ once written backward if you use it to deploy software 
> > for churches.
> > 
> > :-)
> 
> 
> How about, proposing instead a license that would please you and others
> better?
> 
> Would it be better for everybody, if the wiki would be GPL licensed?
> Should I change the license to GPL? 
> 
> After reading Julia's comments on problems that might appear when we
> cite FAI code in the wiki, that sounds much more reasonable for me,
> maybe even the only useful/viable way to go.
> 
> 
> > 
> > So the question for a good licence for a wiki for a software which is released 
> > under the GPL is still open...
> 
> It's in fact an interesting question if there is somebody alive and
> reading mail in debian-legal. Or do we need to prove that fai is a
> debian package? - dpkg/apt-cache should do that better than us. Or is it
> a subscribed-only list that doesn't tell use we're not subscribed, just
> stores the mails in /dev/null as long as we're not?
> 
> Henning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>