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

All about the OSDev Wiki. Discussions about the organization and general structure of articles and how to use the wiki. Request changes here if you don't know how to use the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kevin McGuire
Member
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:
Contact Kevin McGuire

Post by Kevin McGuire »

I was wondering because I can not understand:

http://www.osdev.org/wiki/OSDevWiki:License
The content contained here was intended to be free. The amount of freedom will be clarified though a community selected license (see the polls). All authors of existing material will be attempted to be informed of the new official license declaration. Any author not in agreement of the new license(s) can have their content removed or choose to dual license their work. This does not apply to forum content in which all posts are owned by the author.
Why would I want to dual license if we choose the public domain? :?

\\\edit\\\
I am seriously asking a question. I have mental disability and I am unable to understand complex subjects easily so I was truly wanting someone to tell me. I am lost and need help.
Top
User avatar
chase
Site Admin
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:46 pm
Libera.chat IRC: chase_osdev
Location: Texas
Discord: chase/matt.heimer
Contact:
Contact chase

Post by chase »

Kevin McGuire wrote:I was wondering because I can not understand http://www.osdev.org/wiki/OSDevWiki:License
Any author not in agreement of the new license(s) can have their content removed or choose to dual license their work.
Why would I want to dual license if we choose the public domain? :?
Most likely you wouldn't. I'm just trying to not sound like a dictator (if you don't agree I don't want your content!). If we do choose CC or something then it would make sense to dual license, still 6 days to go on the polls.
Top
User avatar
mystran
Member
Member
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:08 am

Post by mystran »

Brynet-Inc wrote:

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 :lol:..
You realize that since I told I'm not a lawyer, anything I say is not legal advice, and if you use the text I provided as a license for something, you should have a lawyer check that it actually makes sense, and if it doesn't make sense, you can't blame me for that.

And Kevin, no I've not had any courses, but I do read local laws sometimes, and I guess I'm one of the few people that actually read licenses properly when I want to use something.
The real problem with goto is not with the control transfer, but with environments. Properly tail-recursive closures get both right.
Top
User avatar
Brynet-Inc
Member
Member
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:29 pm
Libera.chat IRC: brynet
Location: Canada
Contact:
Contact Brynet-Inc

Post by Brynet-Inc »

mystran wrote:You realize that since I told I'm not a lawyer, anything I say is not legal advice, and if you use the text I provided as a license for something, you should have a lawyer check that it actually makes sense, and if it doesn't make sense, you can't blame me for that.
I have no plans to use your licence... I was just making corrections.
Image
Twitter: @canadianbryan. Award by smcerm, I stole it. Original was larger.
Top
User avatar
Kevin McGuire
Member
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:
Contact Kevin McGuire

Post by Kevin McGuire »


Most likely you wouldn't. I'm just trying to not sound like a dictator (if you don't agree I don't want your content!). If we do choose CC or something then it would make sense to dual license, still 6 days to go on the polls.


I just found this: haha.

Watch my impression of grass growing:
.......!
.....!.!
...!.!.!
.!.!.!.!

Ok. Here is a trail of ants:

.x....x.xx...x.x......(headed towards you're butt for a snack)....()()

Ok. Just having fun being devious. :D
Top
anon19287473
Member
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:27 pm

Post by anon19287473 »

wait... the wiki's not in free domain or GPL'd or something. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! It's a wiki for christ's sake!!! I thought that was the idea, free info.
Top
Solidus117
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:29 pm

Post by Solidus117 »

Yeah, I'll have to throw my vote to the PD camp. There is no reasonable way for any of us to enforce license violations, so why go to the trouble *of* licensing it?

"Information wants to be free!"
Top
User avatar
Combuster
Member
Member
Posts: 9301
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:45 am
Libera.chat IRC: [com]buster
Location: On the balcony, where I can actually keep 1½m distance
Contact:
Contact Combuster

Post by Combuster »

If you have looked at the polls, you'll see that there is an overwhelming majority of votes for public domain licensing.

I think its time Chase comes along to officially announce that...
"Certainly avoid yourself. He is a newbie and might not realize it. You'll hate his code deeply a few years down the road." - Sortie
[ My OS ] [ VDisk/SFS ]
Top
User avatar
Kevin McGuire
Member
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:
Contact Kevin McGuire

Post by Kevin McGuire »

Test Material
I can understand someone just feeling a certain way, but I have never been able to understand this argument - and a lot others.
wait... the wiki's not in free domain or GPL'd or something. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! It's a wiki for christ's sake!!! I thought that was the idea, free info.
Just take a close look at the words in bold above in the quote, and tell me if this person has any idea what they are talking about?


Here is another one.
Yeah, I'll have to throw my vote to the PD camp. There is no reasonable way for any of us to enforce license violations, so why go to the trouble *of* licensing it?

"Information wants to be free!"
IQ Test Question
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the text in bold in the two quotes above? I would hope some of he people who voted for public domain can tell me.. hopefully the two posters..

Warning
(and I do not want another single argument about this license vs this license directed at me because that is not what I am talking about so if you feel compelled to write something like that then just look at what I am putting in bold in the two quotes above..)
Top
User avatar
Brynet-Inc
Member
Member
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:29 pm
Libera.chat IRC: brynet
Location: Canada
Contact:
Contact Brynet-Inc

Post by Brynet-Inc »

The Wiki was designed for helping people..
What people do with the content is irrelevant.. And I'm guessing by their "free" statement, They don't want any restrictions on the content.

The is a small community as it is.. We shouldn't be scaring everyone with long extensive and scary licences.

It's a good resource we have... What possible reason would anyone have to encumber it all with licences?
Image
Twitter: @canadianbryan. Award by smcerm, I stole it. Original was larger.
Top
User avatar
Kevin McGuire
Member
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:
Contact Kevin McGuire

Post by Kevin McGuire »

The Wiki was designed for helping people..
What people do with the content is irrelevant.. And I'm guessing by their "free" statement, They don't want any restrictions on the content.

...
Can you answer my question above in a direct way, pretty please?

Just to help you out I am not arguing what license we should use for the Wiki, but arguing two people's reasons for picking the public domain license.

^^ important: read ^^
Top
User avatar
Brynet-Inc
Member
Member
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:29 pm
Libera.chat IRC: brynet
Location: Canada
Contact:
Contact Brynet-Inc

Post by Brynet-Inc »

Kevin McGuire wrote:Can you answer my question above in a direct way, pretty please?

Just to help you out I am not arguing what license we should use for the Wiki, but arguing two people's reasons for picking the public domain license.

^^ important: read ^^
:P You know.. you're a real pain in the *** :lol:
Image
Twitter: @canadianbryan. Award by smcerm, I stole it. Original was larger.
Top
User avatar
Kevin McGuire
Member
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:
Contact Kevin McGuire

Post by Kevin McGuire »

Its a really simple question. :P

What is wrong with using:

"information needs/wants/should-be free"

As a argument to using Public Domain?
Top
User avatar
Kevin McGuire
Member
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:
Contact Kevin McGuire

I got the answer.

Post by Kevin McGuire »

I got the answer:

Information is not protected by a copyright!
Top
Tyler
Member
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:37 am
Location: York, England

Re: I got the answer.

Post by Tyler »

Kevin McGuire wrote:I got the answer:

Information is not protected by a copyright!
Too true... luckily most people here (You and I excluded) are not up their own arses far enough to conisder their contributions to be anything more than expression of said "free" information. So wording it with the term free and not clarifying it really won't do any damage.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “OSDev Wiki”