OSDev.org

Well both are Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, the only difference is the NonCommercial clause. The reason I suggested the one that allows commerical use is because if the wiki ever gets into a more book like state I'd like to sell bound copies to help support the site using something like http://www.lulu.com/. I wouldn't really be worried about other people printing it and profiting because I'd always host it in electronic format for free. Since I'm not asking people to transfer ownership to osdev.org then if we don't allow commercial use now then we'd never be allowed to sell printed copies in the future.

My heart just fell out my chest, and died in the floor. I feel we could find a way to insert a clause for osdev.org into the license since I do not think putting a bandage the size of the world (commercial) on a little cut (osdev.org) is practical.

It actually feels like more research should be done for the license. I think a clause would need to specify osdev.org as a non-profit organization too. I mean what is owners change, and what if this and that.

And one might argue that of course why would anyone buy content that already exists on the internet for free, but everyone does not know everything or we would not have rich people.

You guys have to think about protecting people's interests. I mean these people are going to devote time and should honestly be protected out of courtesy to them.

I know the Wiki has become extremely complicated and time consuming now, but the world is complicated and time consuming and is not going to just stop and take a break for someone to catch up.

So maybe I am just complicating the matter. If no one else agree's with me then just write the whole thing off using the two conditions you proposed and I will never talk about it anymore.

You can still have my contributions too although not much, but are something. I tried.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization

Kevin McGuire wrote:My heart just fell out my chest, and died in the floor. I feel we could find a way to insert a clause for osdev.org into the license since I do not think putting a bandage the size of the world (commercial) on a little cut (osdev.org) is practical.

It actually feels like more research should be done for the license. I think a clause would need to specify osdev.org as a non-profit organization too. I mean what is owners change, and what if this and that.

And one might argue that of course why would anyone buy content that already exists on the internet for free, but everyone does not know everything or we would not have rich people.

I've actually spend a lot of time researching licenses lately for some of my other projects. The "Attribution" clause would allow us to enforce a reference to osdev.org in any commercial works so people would be aware of where the information came from. As far as why someone would purchase the content when it is free on the internet, I and other people just like printed material sometimes. However the main reason I think anyone would have any interest in buying to work would just be to support the site. Don't misunderstand, I don't need the money nor do I have any illusions about actually making a profit. On average I spend over a thousand dollars per year running the site. I didn't want to try to have any clauses stating that osdev.org can do something with the content that other people can't, that would give me a chance to do something evil (not that I would). And like you said, what if? What if I die tomorrow and osdev.org disappears? Then the ability to sell a printed copy would be lost forever if an osdev.org only clause was added. As a side note, osdev.org will likely never change owners, it's one of the longest running sites on this subject and I plan on keeping it open for a long time.

Like you say, the work around for this would be for me to make osdev.org a non-profit organization. A printed OS development book created from wiki content could be offered as a gift for donation similar to what the FSF does (https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf). Since the OSFAQ was orginally created by Dark Fiber I've sent him an email asking his thoughts on the issue.

I have thought about making osdev.org a non-profit in the past, just never got around to it. I probably should just for the tax write-off.

as for original license I dont recall one.

the original html faq I made as a zip and allowed people to re-host it, some university places also used it as material. I'm certainly not going to make any claims of ownership or that.

I'm pretty sure there still are quite a few zip files of v1 around the place.

The v2 wiki version, became a community effort, and a lot of info had been culled from message board posts and the like. The only thing I can think of would be some of the inline code in some of the wiki pages, I think that would be down to the original authors (those who contributed code are not that many...)

solar would have a better idea I think, as I remember he was doing some stuff on the wiki and I vaguely remember this coming up before, but I'm sure we defaulted the wiki page license to something gnu or pd or something.

I also recall, not a lot of people had rights to edit the wiki (only a handfull) and they dont strike me as the kind of people who would dissallow explicitly relicensing any contributions.

The faq was never started with the intention of ownership so retroactivly applying the CCL or something or making it all PD etc would I think be fine.

df wrote:solar would have a better idea I think, as I remember he was doing some stuff on the wiki and I vaguely remember this coming up before, but I'm sure we defaulted the wiki page license to something gnu or pd or something.

I don't really remember doing anything regarding license statements in the old Wiki.

The faq was never started with the intention of ownership so retroactivly applying the CCL or something or making it all PD etc would I think be fine.

That would get my vote, too, if for nothing else but having people stop worrying about licensing.

Picture someone in a hurry, finding our wiki, looking up something, finding a piece of text or code, and copying it to get the work done (without bothering the small print in the footer telling yadda yadda about licenses).

Then, later, someone shows up and says, "this was a license violation", and makes demands...

Wouldn't that feel a bit... Microsoft-ish?

Anything I've ever written in the old wiki (which is unfortunately less than I'd hoped for) is therefore licenses for use and/or redistribution under the OSI approved MIT license with the special condition, that dropping the whole notice is fine, as distribution in full is not substantial part, since there isn't much in the first place.

edit: oh and I'm fine with that applying to anything I'd write to the new wiki as well, until there's a more official wiki license.

Picture someone in a hurry, finding our wiki, looking up something, finding a piece of text or code, and copying it to get the work done (without bothering the small print in the footer telling yadda yadda about licenses).

Then, later, someone shows up and says, "this was a license violation", and makes demands...

You need to go back and read the first post by chase instead of doing that skimming technique when reading a thread. I am really annoyed by people posting about a license and have no clue what they are saying. I feel like I am talking to a ten year old.

And in actuality you sound a bit Microsoft'ish.

I wish you would really think about why someone would copy the text. I would hope you could come up with a good reason why. After you think about it for a good while. It surely makes no sense to me. However. If someone did decide to copy the text for some strange reason which I have never had to do in my entire life, then maybe we could continue on to think about why they should copy it for a commercial purpose?

Go back to the beginning of this thread and find out why someone would want to copy the text. I got the impression it is for some lazy reason of not doing it their selves which makes no sense since it was so easy..

And for the skimming type people:
I have never had to copy a article, document, or expression of a idea in partial or whole for any reason excluding code that can naturally be translated into machine code with a compiler.

The word text does not relate to anything that a compiler can naturally translate into machine code, excluding a compiler that can actually read English and produce a program.

Kevin McGuire wrote:

Picture someone in a hurry, finding our wiki, looking up something, finding a piece of text or code, and copying it to get the work done (without bothering the small print in the footer telling yadda yadda about licenses).

Then, later, someone shows up and says, "this was a license violation", and makes demands...

You need to go back and read the first post by chase instead of doing that skimming technique when reading a thread. I am really annoyed by people posting about a license and have no clue what they are saying. I feel like I am talking to a ten year old.

Dude... i know solar won't care so i am going to force the argument on his behalf... you really cannot say **** like this. When it comes to arguments with ten year olds, it is usually solar playing the mature one who knows what he is on about, and your arrogant comments in your last posts are all really getting on my nerves.

Believe it or not you can't intergrate yourself into the forum by insulting the admins and trying to sound knowledgeable. Now personally i see nothing wrong with Solars comment, so not only were you been a twat, but wrong as well... so stop it.

hehe

Moderators are entitled to be wrong just as normal humans are. It makes him no god, but rather just someone to acknowledge completely. However when he says something really far out, in my opinion, I will respond in what way I feel creates a situation that will produce a resolution. And I am sure he has ample brain power to conceive a more than adequate response that could surely make my point against him invalid if he choose to. However that is no fact and only his response will show this.

So I did acknowledge him completely because he holds a political amount of power. As I can see you are swayed by his very comment into believing something. That is just my opinion, and I am sure it was not his intention to sway people but instead he was just voicing his personal opinion as a user.

I have just one problem with the two licenses, namely that there are two different ones. IMHO that just complicates things.

Also, iirc quite a few things from the MT wiki were copied from the forum, (forum posts being considered public domain by some) so changing it to CC would equal to taking on a more restrictive license.

Besides if we can just state public domain we all know exactly what we are dealing with without all the legal hassles and such.

---

p.s. There already was a thread to discuss just this...

Combuster wrote: I have just one problem with the two licenses, namely that there are two different ones. IMHO that just complicates things.

Yeah. I know what you mean. I wish life was not very complicated, but it is. My opinion is that if you start copying stuff out of the wiki you should as a normal human being feel inclined to do the proper action which would be only one required by the CC license: Attribution.

Of course I would like the non-commercial in addition to attribution.

In a case like this I feel a slightly more restrictive license is better than none such as public domain with respect to the content in the wiki while excluding source code since the source code is already proposed to be under public domain.

The only reason two different licenses should complicate things is if someone started copying content and not giving attribution or using it for a commercial reason and we all know that if you start a commercial entity you should have a legal adviser somewhere to call.

So the source code starts at [/i]free[/i], then the content steps up one step to need attribution or if it would go like I feel a step of need attribution and no commercial unless waived by the original author(s).

Combuster wrote: Besides if we can just state public domain we all know exactly what we are dealing with without all the legal hassles and such.

This is history. If you go back through out history you will find points in time where a easy path was chosen versus a harder path and the result was not what anyone who was promoting the easy path expected or really wanted. Or course they are times when it produced a negative result and this of course as my opinion is a exception to the rule of thumb.

Combuster wrote:I have just one problem with the two licenses, namely that there are two different ones. IMHO that just complicates things.

I don't think there is a way to get around having multiple licenses. Take an earlier post from mystran for example, he's just licensed his content under MIT(dropping the notice). So his stuff is completely open except he retains copyright. But if he is ok with also allowing it to be licensed under CC we can just put up a notice saying individual contributions may additionally be available under a different license, please see the authors TalkBack page to determine if this is the case. Someone who wants their content to be more open shouldn't have any problem with also having a more restrictive version also available because they can always duel license. It's only the authors that want their content less open that should have and issue with the CC. So I'm thinking that we are stuck with multiple licenses but does that really matter for the text of the wiki for most people that visit this site, no. What really matters to most of the visitors is the code and like you said I'd like it if "we all know exactly what we are dealing with without all the legal hassles and such" with the code. Without legal hassles means public domain to me and there should be no worries when someone copies and pastes any of the code from the wiki.

Eventually I hope to have what is now the just the wiki as two seperate concepts that are intermingled.

* The authoritive manual of writing an OS. It'd be a fairly unique thing so there should be something in place to make sure all people who encounter it know where it actually came from.

* A sample/community OS that is used as an example in the text of the wiki. I think it should be a completely free framework/foundation for people to start their own OS with.

This is really why I'm saying two different licenses.

Combuster wrote:Also, iirc quite a few things from the MT wiki were copied from the forum, (forum posts being considered public domain by some) so changing it to CC would equal to taking on a more restrictive license.

Depends on where you live. In most countries the exact opposite is true, by default the author reserves all rights on his posts. That's why my earlier post was talking about making a good faith assumtion that content moved in to the osfaq wiki was meant to be free. I'm also going to send out emails to as many of the original major contributers as I can to make sure that their content was not meant to be under more restrictive terms.

Combuster wrote:p.s. There already was a thread to discuss just this...

Several I think, I'm trying to make this be the last one. As fun as license discussion is I think we all have better things to do

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.

OR: Allow a individual license on the talk page?

Kevin McGuire wrote:Allow a individual license on the talk page?

A duel license yes, a seperate one no. We need a single license for the text to keep it simple.

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...

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.