About the license used

[theflossinformation]

I'm doing translation projects myself and I'm thinking about translating your projects in the future and publishing it on my blog. In doing so, I try to respect the copyrights of people. Are all of the content in your wiki licensed with CC0? I think your license situation is a little complicated.

If you have the CC0 license that I think is public domain, I think you should add a notification to a part of the page.

I'm not an expert on this. So your opinions can guide me.

[Solar]

Unfortunately, in the beginning the Wiki/FAQ did not have a license. People were collaborating on it in the hopes it might be helpful to others, without worrying about legalese involved.

There has been an attempt to get all contributions retroactively CC0 licensed (thanks for the hard work put into it, Combuster!), but that process was never actually finished:

As from 03-07-2011, all new content has to be strictly compatible with Public Domain licensing. 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.

That means that currently the contents of this wiki is of mixed licensing.

[Combuster]

The vast majority is CC0 at this time. The purge of content from dangling users was never finished however and there might be stray bits and pieces in places. There's an index of users, you can compare that master list with the users in the page history for safety if any of the content is from 2011 or earlier.

If you or someone else does see something that should not be used, you can help out with the dreary task of cleaning it up. User contributions can be found through the specialpages, you can remove what's left from their changes in the current version, and where appropriate substitute fresh writing if that change leaves information gaps. You can then tick off the user in the master page and bring the conversion closer to completion.

[Solar]

Rewording is fine for running text, but what about technical information, or corrections thereof? If someone fixed some technical data, e.g. a "6" to a "7"? We can hardly revert that to the previous (erroneous) value...

I am also a bit confused about the "check-off list". You have listed a couple of "problem cases" at the top where people have not replied to PMs and haven't signed off their work as CC0. But there are users in the alphabetical list with significant contributions, not struck off yet, but not listed as "problem cases" either. Have those not yet been notified, or...?

[Combuster]

If someone fixed some technical data, e.g. a "6" to a "7"

I do not consider facts copyrightable. In similar vain you'll find that many contributors have already been marked off by virtue of having only contributed spelling corrections. After all, even people unaware of the revert are capable and likely to make the exact change again under their name.

You have listed a couple of "problem cases"

That label is merely reserved for people that have actively hindered the process by deleting their PMs instead of answering. Larger contributors could fit a different definition of problem cases, but it would be rather rude to judge them particularly for no reason other than having more than 25 edits when they vanished, rather than giving them at least some credit for having been far more active than the average.