what is the license of the text at www.osdev.org/wiki ?

[Kevin McGuire]

Wouldn't "licencing" the pages require everyone who's ever added or edited pages consent?

Some people might not be happy with someone licencing their text without permission.

Maybe I'm just rambling...

Chase talked about it here:
http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... ght=#94909

The code though should be Public Domain, Some people who may have used it in their project might be a little discouraged if a licence was forced on them.

Yeah I agree too. Chase has already said that the code will be public domain so we are ok on that.

[chase]

Wouldn't "licencing" the pages require everyone who's ever added or edited pages consent?

Some people might not be happy with someone licencing their text without permission.

Actually now that I think about it we should be ok. To edit the current wiki you have to sign up for a group. I can easly do a email message to all those people asking about if they are ok the license or if they want their content removed. For the MT FAQ I think I mostly just need to try to contact the people on http://www.osdev.org/osfaq2/index.php/W ... 0the%20FAQ and anyone who inserted their name in the text. Since I have the orginal MT phpwiki DB and the forum DB I'll try to match up editors to email addresses as well. The MT FAQ allowed anonymous edits and those edits are free to be licensed as we see fit because most countries follow the the Berne Convention for protecting copyrights and it states:

In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, other than those referred to in paragraph (1) above, the publisher whose name appears on the work shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to represent the author, and in this capacity be shall be entitled to protect and enforce the author's rights. The provisions of this paragraph shall cease to apply when the author reveals his identity and establishes his claim to authorship of the work.

So when the FAQ was transfered from MT to OSDev.org OSDev.org became the the publisher to assert the rights of the anonymous authors unless they claim authorship and ask otherwise.

I think I prefer reading AT&T syntax asm over copyright law

[Brynet-Inc]

I think I prefer reading AT&T syntax asm over copyright law

hahaha! The feeling is mutual.. It was all so much easier when everyone just guessed the Wiki content was "Free For All".

[mystran]

So.. mm.. why can't we just have something like "The content of the wiki is free to use as you please, but without any warranty." and be done with the whole issue?

[Kevin McGuire]

In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, other than those referred to in paragraph (1) above, the publisher whose name appears on the work shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to represent the author, and in this capacity be shall be entitled to protect and enforce the author's rights. The provisions of this paragraph shall cease to apply when the author reveals his identity and establishes his claim to authorship of the work.

So the anonymous authors rights now have to be protected and enforced, which I would assume means that the work stays with all rights reserved.

For if the author reveals himself, and a license has been placed on their work that has (given) some rights away at least in the context of a public domain type license then this would not have been a act of enforcing and protecting the rights.

I think a CC license with the noncommercial clause would be more appropriate in this situation rather than with out one just for the sake of being really safe. The whole purpose of a copyright is to help the author secure the value of that work. I expect the only reason someone would become angry or upset is if the work generated revenue with out their consent.

I mean all you are supposed to do is protect and enforce their rights. So the protect them you do not license them out. To enforce them you report copyright violations on their behalf if you know about them...until the author reveals himself or you delete/burn the copyrighted material and free you're self from having to worry over such stuff.

Or, we just use a restrictive license and make a best effort to protect the contributions, and stop trying to leave loop holes for our own self gain.

Ok that last sentence was a little over board, but come on. Just lock the content down unless the author(s) decide they want to change it and make it more open - and then they can dual license.

And just to keep it fresh in everyone's mind.
-------------
Code
Yeah. I have always been and I am just fine with the code being public domain or whatever you guys want it to be as my opinion.

Text/Images/Expression/Articles - Non Code Portion
If we can figure out weather we agree the CC license should include or not include the ability to be used commercially then we can put this whole deal to rest.

[chase]

In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, other than those referred to in paragraph (1) above, the publisher whose name appears on the work shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to represent the author, and in this capacity be shall be entitled to protect and enforce the author's rights. The provisions of this paragraph shall cease to apply when the author reveals his identity and establishes his claim to authorship of the work.

So the anonymous authors rights now have to be protected and enforced, which I would assume means that the work stays with all rights reserved.

Representing the author and being entitled to enforce the rights does not mean there is a requirement to enforce all rights. Defaulting to all rights reserved is only for works that have a known author, that was the point I was making. For anonymous authors the publisher gets to decide.

I think a CC license with the noncommercial clause would be more appropriate in this situation rather than with out one just for the sake of being really safe. The whole purpose of a copyright is to help the author secure the value of that work. I expect the only reason someone would become angry or upset is if the work generated revenue with out their consent.

Then were back to the whole thing about never being able to sell a book even to our own community at a discounted rate even if they want it. I'm not going to have a modified license, it needs to be one of the better known ones so people can understand the intent as easy as possible. Plus I don't have the funds to hire a laywer to review a custom license and that's what you really need to do if you are going to customize one. I'm going to create some polls in a couple of minutes and we are going to decide that way.

[chase]

So.. mm.. why can't we just have something like "The content of the wiki is free to use as you please, but without any warranty." and be done with the whole issue?

Because it's not in proper legal phrasing. Does "free" mean free in the MIT license sense or the public domain sense? Some people consider the GPL free, some consider it a virus, then you have the whole beer vs speech argument.

[Kevin McGuire]

Oh yeah and if I was in charge and responsible for the wiki content. I would feel a whole lot better about going in front of a judge to explain why I made the decision I did because:

Now the code is so general in that Wiki that I think it would not apply here as we already have determined quite a few times.

1. I wanted to make it public domain (equivalent). WHY?
- Well. I do not know sir. I mean what are you going to say?

2. I wanted to ensure that the authors rights were protected as much as possible while still trying to maintain their intentions and move forward with our collection of information.

A. (All Rights Reserved) --> B. (NonCommerical) ---> (Public Domain)

I think I would feel a lot better moving somewhere between A and B so I could use 2 to get out of trouble.


Now. If you took the time to become a non-profit organization. Which I am not actually proposing that you do this but instead just giving a example. Then somehow through the legal mush you were able to produce a commercial copy of the wiki to help support the site (which is basically the wiki) and I assume the authors original intentions were to have that content displayed so I think if things went down hill in this case you could still argue.

2. I wanted to ensure that the authors rights were protected as much as possible while still trying to maintain their intentions and move forward with our collection of information.

I think it would show good faith, not the reverse which is bad.

[Kevin McGuire]

Ok. I was trying to help you, but if anything happens it will be because of this. So do not say I did not try to tell you.

Then were back to the whole thing about never being able to sell a book even to our own community at a discounted rate even if they want it.

That is going to get you into trouble if anything ever does.

So put the poll up and lets have some people vote and put this behind us then.

[mystran]

So.. mm.. why can't we just have something like "The content of the wiki is free to use as you please, but without any warranty." and be done with the whole issue?

Because it's not in proper legal phrasing. Does "free" mean free in the MIT license sense or the public domain sense? Some people consider the GPL free, some consider it a virus, then you have the whole beer vs speech argument.

Actually, "free to use as you please" is indeed quite clear, while simply stating "free" would not be. But I didn't suggest my phrasing to be used as such. If you need a version in legalese, how about this:

You may use the contents of this wiki free of charge and without limitation, in part or in whole, for whatever purpose subject to the following conditions: There is no warranty expressed or implied, and neither the maintainer nor any of the authors take any responsibility for correctness and cannot be held responsible for any direct, indirect or unrelated damages caused by any use of the information provided. If your cat dies, plane crashes, and/or house burns don't come blaming us.

[pcmattman]

But what if the plane crashes because I'm reading the wiki on my laptop in the plane while landing and it interferes with the communications systems on the plane?

Or what if my cat dies because I become devoted to ensuring that the wiki is a perfect place for everyone else and forget to feed it?

You have to try harder .

I was confused while reading the license you proposed. That means it's a good license - if people don't understand it and break it we can sue them and make millions .

[Kevin McGuire]

Yeah it is most likely a good idea to make the entire wiki public domain since quotation is typically fair-use, people can increase their knowledge, and various other things I forgot about.

We got so far with team work guys. We did a good job.

You may use the contents of this wiki free of charge and without limitation, in part or in whole, for whatever purpose subject to the following conditions: There is no warranty expressed or implied, and neither the maintainer nor any of the authors take any responsibility for correctness and cannot be held responsible for any direct, indirect or unrelated damages caused by any use of the information provided. If your cat dies, plane crashes, and/or house burns don't come blaming us.

I can never understand how those guys write the licenses. That stuff really is amazing.

I was confused while reading the license you proposed. That means it's a good license - if people don't understand it and break it we can sue them and make millions

I know, haha.

[mystran]

I can never understand how those guys write the licenses. That stuff really is amazing.

Well, I am not a lawyer but my English teacher once complained 'cos I had to write an "essay" of 200 words, and the first sentence took over hundred already. Nowadays when I write some text, I typically try to break any long sentence into shorter ones, but the "skill" of writing long ones comes in handy for pseudo-legalese.

[Kevin McGuire]

You are pretty good at it, dude. I think you're English teacher did you a favor in the long run.

Did you take any legal courses in college. I ask because you actually wrote it with a lawyer sound to it, haha. Kewl it was.

[Brynet-Inc]

Code: Select all

--- licence     Sun Apr 29 11:45:51 2007
+++ licence2    Sun Apr 29 11:50:44 2007
@@ -2,6 +2,6 @@
 limitation, in part or in whole, for whatever purpose subject to the
 following conditions: There is no warranty expressed or implied, and
 neither the maintainer nor any of the authors take any responsibility
-for correctness and cannot be held responsible for any direct, indirect
-or unrelated damages caused by any use of the information provided. If
+for correctness and cannot be held liable for any direct, indirect or
+unrelated damages caused by any use of the information provided. If
 your cat dies, plane crashes, and/or house burns don't come blaming us.

I think it sounds like a Public Domain licence with a liability clause ..