Proposed wiki license

I am proposing that we use the following as the license for the wiki.
Please comment. Even comments on spelling and grammar will be
appreciated.

IANAL and this has not been read or approved by a lawyer. But, I hope it
expresses a view of how the documentation should be treated that we can
all agree on.

SDL Wiki License

By posting on the SDL Documentation Wiki you are granting everyone
everywhere and for all time a license to do the following with your
posted material:

1.The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.

2.The freedom to make copies, for any purpose, so long as the copies are
granted the same freedoms as the original version.

3.The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to their
needs.

4.The Freedom to reformat the posted material into a preferred format or
medium (converting to braille, or speech, or hard copy, or postscript,
etc) for use with any type of device or technology.

5.The freedom to redistribute copies, including modified versions, so
long as the copies are granted the same freedoms as the version.

6.The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits, so long as the modified
versions are granted the same freedoms as the original version.

7.Freedom to translate the text into any other language, so long as the
translated versions are granted the same freedoms as the original.

8.The freedom to keep your modifications of a personal copy, or even
your possession of a copy of the text, confidential.–
±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton wrote:

I am proposing that we use the following as the license for the wiki.
Please comment. Even comments on spelling and grammar will be
appreciated.

IANAL and this has not been read or approved by a lawyer. But, I hope it
expresses a view of how the documentation should be treated that we can
all agree on.

SDL Wiki License

By posting on the SDL Documentation Wiki you are granting everyone
everywhere and for all time a license to do the following with your
posted material:

1.The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.

2.The freedom to make copies, for any purpose, so long as the copies are
granted the same freedoms as the original version.

3.The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to their
needs.

4.The Freedom to reformat the posted material into a preferred format or
medium (converting to braille, or speech, or hard copy, or postscript,
etc) for use with any type of device or technology.

5.The freedom to redistribute copies, including modified versions, so
long as the copies are granted the same freedoms as the version.

6.The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits, so long as the modified
versions are granted the same freedoms as the original version.

7.Freedom to translate the text into any other language, so long as the
translated versions are granted the same freedoms as the original.

No “The” here ?

Also, why specifiy explicitly in points 5, 6 and 7 that the translated
versions should be granted the same freedoms as the original ? Isn’t
that already covered by point 2 ? If that’s not the case, why doesn’t
point 4 specify the same ?

[yes, I’m nitpicking. Nitkpicking is the basis of any legal thing in my
view]

8.The freedom to keep your modifications of a personal copy, or even
your possession of a copy of the text, confidential.

Also, should we add a disclaimer ? Maybe that could avoid getting into
trouble in the case of erroneous content ?

Is this license free software compatible ? It seems to me, but I’m
concerned that the SDL wiki material will end up in the SDL distribution
and one point (in the form of manpages). And thus we would like that its
license is considered free software (so that it can included in
distributions).

Stephane

Bob Pendleton wrote:

I am proposing that we use the following as the license for the wiki.
Please comment. Even comments on spelling and grammar will be
appreciated.

IANAL and this has not been read or approved by a lawyer. But, I hope it
expresses a view of how the documentation should be treated that we can
all agree on.

SDL Wiki License

By posting on the SDL Documentation Wiki you are granting everyone
everywhere and for all time a license to do the following with your
posted material:

1.The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.

2.The freedom to make copies, for any purpose, so long as the copies are
granted the same freedoms as the original version.

3.The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to their
needs.

4.The Freedom to reformat the posted material into a preferred format or
medium (converting to braille, or speech, or hard copy, or postscript,
etc) for use with any type of device or technology.

5.The freedom to redistribute copies, including modified versions, so
long as the copies are granted the same freedoms as the version.

6.The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits, so long as the modified
versions are granted the same freedoms as the original version.

7.Freedom to translate the text into any other language, so long as the
translated versions are granted the same freedoms as the original.

No “The” here ?

Also, why specifiy explicitly in points 5, 6 and 7 that the translated
versions should be granted the same freedoms as the original ? Isn’t
that already covered by point 2 ? If that’s not the case, why doesn’t
point 4 specify the same ?

[yes, I’m nitpicking. Nitkpicking is the basis of any legal thing in my
view]

I want you do nitpick. I appreciate nitpicking. You made several good
points and I am rethinking the whole thing right now.

	bob PendletonOn Wed, 2004-08-18 at 13:24, Stephane Marchesin wrote:

8.The freedom to keep your modifications of a personal copy, or even
your possession of a copy of the text, confidential.

Also, should we add a disclaimer ? Maybe that could avoid getting into
trouble in the case of erroneous content ?

Is this license free software compatible ? It seems to me, but I’m
concerned that the SDL wiki material will end up in the SDL distribution
and one point (in the form of manpages). And thus we would like that its
license is considered free software (so that it can included in
distributions).

Stephane


SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

±-------------------------------------+

IMHO there should be a distinction between the documentation license
and the TOS of the wiki site itself. What does everyone else think? #5
and #6 seem to touch on the latter in an indirect fashion.> 5.The freedom to redistribute copies, including modified versions, so

long as the copies are granted the same freedoms as the version.

6.The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to
the
public, so that the whole community benefits, so long as the modified
versions are granted the same freedoms as the original version.


IANAL and this has not been read or approved by a lawyer. But, I hope
it
expresses a view of how the documentation should be treated that we can
all agree on.

Speaking of lawyers and all their tricks, shouldn’t we protect
ourselves from liability?

In my own mind, the primary needs of a Documentation License are
starting to sound a lot like the BSD/MIT license. With that in mind,
might it be acceptable to use something like the following?


Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this documentation and associated documentation files (the
"Documentation"), to deal in the Documentation without restriction,
including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the
Documentation, and to permit persons to whom the Documentation is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Documentation.

THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.


d-legal: CC’d for comments, since this is a topic that came up many
times during the GFDL discussions, and my initial recommendation of
using the same license for the wiki as the software originated there.
DFSG-freeness may be an issue at some point as well, since, as Stephane
observed, it’s very likely that text from the wiki could be used as the
basis for a set of manpages or other documentation, and that could be
packaged.

The context should be clear from the quoted text: the license for the
SDL documentation wiki.

Note that the SDL list is, unfortunately, set to subscription-post-
only, which breaks crossposted discussions. If any useful discussion
forms on the d-legal list and doesn’t make it to the SDL list, I’ll
post an archive link. (Sorry, folks, nothing I can do about it …)On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:26:08PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:

I am proposing that we use the following as the license for the wiki.
Please comment. Even comments on spelling and grammar will be
appreciated.

IANAL and this has not been read or approved by a lawyer. But, I hope it
expresses a view of how the documentation should be treated that we can
all agree on.

SDL Wiki License

By posting on the SDL Documentation Wiki you are granting everyone
everywhere and for all time a license to do the following with your
posted material:

1.The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.

2.The freedom to make copies, for any purpose, so long as the copies are
granted the same freedoms as the original version.

3.The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to their
needs.

4.The Freedom to reformat the posted material into a preferred format or
medium (converting to braille, or speech, or hard copy, or postscript,
etc) for use with any type of device or technology.

5.The freedom to redistribute copies, including modified versions, so
long as the copies are granted the same freedoms as the version.

6.The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits, so long as the modified
versions are granted the same freedoms as the original version.

7.Freedom to translate the text into any other language, so long as the
translated versions are granted the same freedoms as the original.

8.The freedom to keep your modifications of a personal copy, or even
your possession of a copy of the text, confidential.

#4, #6, and #7 are all part of #5: they’re just types of modifications,
so there’s no need to mention them specifically. #3 and #8 are rights
that people have, anyway. I’d remove all of those; extra terms in a
license only complicate things.

I’d strongly recommend not writing your own license, and using an existing
and established one instead. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/01/msg00088.html
summarizes some reasons for this better than I can.

Since this is somewhat imprecise, it’s hard for me to critique it as a
license. It seems like it’s trying to be a copyleft, requiring no additional
restrictions be placed; that would probably make it incompatible with the
LGPL-licensed SDL itself, which means that you couldn’t take a piece of text
from the wiki and use it in a comment, or vice versa. Do you think that’s
important? (It seems so to me, but my opinion isn’t very important here and
maybe you guys disagree.)

It would be useful to enumerate the restrictions you wish placed upon the
wiki; from that, somebody may be able to propose a license that does what
you want.

Hmm. Normally, it’s useful to use the same license for documentation as
the software itself; but that’s somewhat difficult with the LGPL, since it
assumes the work it’s applied to is a library. I’m not sure, though.

CC to d-legal for comments. Is it a reasonable recommendation to put a wiki
under the LGPL? If not, is there any approach that would permit text to
cross between the docs and the source, with the source being unalterably
LGPL? (The LGPL is a somewhat strange license, and I don’t understand its
nuances as well as the GPL’s.)


Glenn Maynard

it’s very likely that text from the wiki could be used as the
basis for a set of manpages or other documentation and that could be
packaged.

Well, SDL is LGPL-distributed, and doesn’t the LGPL already have
clauses covering ones’ rights concerning the documentation for
LGPL-distributed software?On Aug 20, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:

The LGPL only covers the work placed under the license; unless snippets
from the source are used in the documentation (which isn’t a stretch)
so the documentation is a derived work of LGPL code, or unless the docs
are themself placed under the LGPL, it has no authority to govern the
documentation.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to; if you could cite clauses, it’d be
helpful. (The word “documentation” never appears in it.)On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 06:12:30PM -0400, Donny Viszneki wrote:

it’s very likely that text from the wiki could be used as the
basis for a set of manpages or other documentation and that could be
packaged.

Well, SDL is LGPL-distributed, and doesn’t the LGPL already have
clauses covering ones’ rights concerning the documentation for
LGPL-distributed software?


Glenn Maynard

it’s very likely that text from the wiki could be used as the
basis for a set of manpages or other documentation and that could be
packaged.

Well, SDL is LGPL-distributed, and doesn’t the LGPL already have
clauses covering ones’ rights concerning the documentation for
LGPL-distributed software?

The LGPL only covers the work placed under the license; unless snippets
from the source are used in the documentation (which isn’t a stretch)
so the documentation is a derived work of LGPL code, or unless the docs
are themself placed under the LGPL, it has no authority to govern the
documentation.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to; if you could cite clauses, it’d
be
helpful. (The word “documentation” never appears in it.)

So sorry, it’s the MIT/BSD licenses which have clauses covering the
documentation. Sorry.On Aug 21, 2004, at 7:05 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 06:12:30PM -0400, Donny Viszneki wrote:


Glenn Maynard


SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

Thank you! These are all valuable comments. Anyone want to suggest a
license? When I suggested using the GFDL there were objections to it
too.

		Bob PendletonOn Fri, 2004-08-20 at 16:27, Glenn Maynard wrote:

d-legal: CC’d for comments, since this is a topic that came up many
times during the GFDL discussions, and my initial recommendation of
using the same license for the wiki as the software originated there.
DFSG-freeness may be an issue at some point as well, since, as Stephane
observed, it’s very likely that text from the wiki could be used as the
basis for a set of manpages or other documentation, and that could be
packaged.

The context should be clear from the quoted text: the license for the
SDL documentation wiki.

Note that the SDL list is, unfortunately, set to subscription-post-
only, which breaks crossposted discussions. If any useful discussion
forms on the d-legal list and doesn’t make it to the SDL list, I’ll
post an archive link. (Sorry, folks, nothing I can do about it …)

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:26:08PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:

I am proposing that we use the following as the license for the wiki.
Please comment. Even comments on spelling and grammar will be
appreciated.

IANAL and this has not been read or approved by a lawyer. But, I hope it
expresses a view of how the documentation should be treated that we can
all agree on.

SDL Wiki License

By posting on the SDL Documentation Wiki you are granting everyone
everywhere and for all time a license to do the following with your
posted material:

1.The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.

2.The freedom to make copies, for any purpose, so long as the copies are
granted the same freedoms as the original version.

3.The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to their
needs.

4.The Freedom to reformat the posted material into a preferred format or
medium (converting to braille, or speech, or hard copy, or postscript,
etc) for use with any type of device or technology.

5.The freedom to redistribute copies, including modified versions, so
long as the copies are granted the same freedoms as the version.

6.The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits, so long as the modified
versions are granted the same freedoms as the original version.

7.Freedom to translate the text into any other language, so long as the
translated versions are granted the same freedoms as the original.

8.The freedom to keep your modifications of a personal copy, or even
your possession of a copy of the text, confidential.

#4, #6, and #7 are all part of #5: they’re just types of modifications,
so there’s no need to mention them specifically. #3 and #8 are rights
that people have, anyway. I’d remove all of those; extra terms in a
license only complicate things.

I’d strongly recommend not writing your own license, and using an existing
and established one instead. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/01/msg00088.html
summarizes some reasons for this better than I can.

Since this is somewhat imprecise, it’s hard for me to critique it as a
license. It seems like it’s trying to be a copyleft, requiring no additional
restrictions be placed; that would probably make it incompatible with the
LGPL-licensed SDL itself, which means that you couldn’t take a piece of text
from the wiki and use it in a comment, or vice versa. Do you think that’s
important? (It seems so to me, but my opinion isn’t very important here and
maybe you guys disagree.)

It would be useful to enumerate the restrictions you wish placed upon the
wiki; from that, somebody may be able to propose a license that does what
you want.

Hmm. Normally, it’s useful to use the same license for documentation as
the software itself; but that’s somewhat difficult with the LGPL, since it
assumes the work it’s applied to is a library. I’m not sure, though.

CC to d-legal for comments. Is it a reasonable recommendation to put a wiki
under the LGPL? If not, is there any approach that would permit text to
cross between the docs and the source, with the source being unalterably
LGPL? (The LGPL is a somewhat strange license, and I don’t understand its
nuances as well as the GPL’s.)

±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton wrote:

Thank you! These are all valuable comments. Anyone want to suggest a
license? When I suggested using the GFDL there were objections to it
too.

GFDL will probably cause trouble with debian.

I tend to like the creative commons license, not because they’re good
(there’s no “better” license), but because they try to be user-friendly
about their implications (with the human-readable code) :
http://creativecommons.org/license/

Stephane

Their licenses tend to be very complicated. The "do whatever you want"
license (“Attribution 2.0”) is some seven pages long in my browser,
compared to the half-page MIT license. It’s complicated enough that
Debian doesn’t seem to have a consensus opinion on it yet; there’s a
lot of “this is odd, we’re not really sure”, which makes me wary of
the license. (I don’t put any stock in the CC’s “common deed” nonsense.
If you want to understand the permissions a license gives you, you must
read the license.)

Anyway, I’d recommend again to back up a bit: stop picking licenses and
talk about what basic terms you’re looking for, what you want to do–and
to allow others to do–with the text, and why. What are your goals?

For example, my answer for my work is usually “let anyone use it for any
purpose; I don’t want to deal with legal stuff if I can avoid it, and I
don’t want it to get in my way or anyone else’s down the road”. (As a
result, I favor the MIT license.)

This won’t give you a license right away, but I think figuring out what
you want in a license will move in the right direction better than pasting
licenses, since that’s doing the same thing–“are these terms what we
want?”–but with the added hassle of having to interpret legalese in the
way, and for those of us offering commentary, it’s impossible to tell
what parts you actually want, and which are just parts of the stock
license you’re using that you don’t actually care about.On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:30:24PM +0200, Stephane Marchesin wrote:

GFDL will probably cause trouble with debian.

I tend to like the creative commons license, not because they’re good
(there’s no “better” license), but because they try to be user-friendly
about their implications (with the human-readable code) :
http://creativecommons.org/license/


Glenn Maynard

After what Sam said about it being public domain, I put up the following
license text at http://www.libsdl.org/cgi/docwiki.cgi/WikiLicense> By posting to the http://libsdl.org wiki you are placing your posting

in the public domain. That is, you are giving everyone the right to do
what they will with your posting.

You agree to take full responsibility for your postings. By posting
here you are certifying that you have the legal right to post what
your are posting, and, that you take full legal responsibility for
what you write.

Posting of spam, unauthorized advertising, hate speech, pornography,
obscenity, copyright materials for which you do not own the copyright,
stolen property, any material that is illegal, or anything not related
to SDL may result in immediate loss of posting privileges.

On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:30:24PM +0200, Stephane Marchesin wrote:

GFDL will probably cause trouble with debian.

I tend to like the creative commons license, not because they’re good
(there’s no “better” license), but because they try to be user-friendly
about their implications (with the human-readable code) :
http://creativecommons.org/license/

Their licenses tend to be very complicated. The "do whatever you want"
license (“Attribution 2.0”) is some seven pages long in my browser,
compared to the half-page MIT license. It’s complicated enough that
Debian doesn’t seem to have a consensus opinion on it yet; there’s a
lot of “this is odd, we’re not really sure”, which makes me wary of
the license. (I don’t put any stock in the CC’s “common deed” nonsense.
If you want to understand the permissions a license gives you, you must
read the license.)

Anyway, I’d recommend again to back up a bit: stop picking licenses and
talk about what basic terms you’re looking for, what you want to do–and
to allow others to do–with the text, and why. What are your goals?

For example, my answer for my work is usually “let anyone use it for any
purpose; I don’t want to deal with legal stuff if I can avoid it, and I
don’t want it to get in my way or anyone else’s down the road”. (As a
result, I favor the MIT license.)

This won’t give you a license right away, but I think figuring out what
you want in a license will move in the right direction better than pasting
licenses, since that’s doing the same thing–“are these terms what we
want?”–but with the added hassle of having to interpret legalese in the
way, and for those of us offering commentary, it’s impossible to tell
what parts you actually want, and which are just parts of the stock
license you’re using that you don’t actually care about.

±-------------------------------------+

After what Sam said about it being public domain, I put up the following
license text at http://www.libsdl.org/cgi/docwiki.cgi/WikiLicense

Okay. It may be worth adding a redundant note that, since the SDL itself
is not public domain, you may not post code snippets from the SDL onto the
wiki (eg. “here’s where the windx5 and windib drivers handle this
differently …”). It’s redundant, but may not be obvious to a casual
reader.

By posting to the http://libsdl.org wiki you are placing your posting
in the public domain. That is, you are giving everyone the right to do
what they will with your posting.

You agree to take full responsibility for your postings. By posting
here you are certifying that you have the legal right to post what
your are posting, and, that you take full legal responsibility for
what you write.

I can’t speak about enforcability–I don’t really know anything about
it. I’ll only point out my impression: saying “by doing this and that,
you agree to this and that” doesn’t seem binding; I can say “no I don’t!”
(By replying this message, you agree to send me a pizza. Oops, I guess
that’s just a false assertion. :slight_smile: It’s just an impression, though, and
I wouldn’t know how to fix it, so I’ll leave it at that.

Posting of spam, unauthorized advertising, hate speech, pornography,
obscenity, copyright materials for which you do not own the copyright,
stolen property, any material that is illegal, or anything not related
to SDL may result in immediate loss of posting privileges.

If all posted materials are released into the public domain, then you
can simplify to “… copyrighted materials”. If you release a work into
the public domain, you’re giving up your copyright; it’s no longer
copyrighted material. (At least, that’s my understanding.)On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:10:20AM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:


Glenn Maynard

After what Sam said about it being public domain, I put up the following
license text at http://www.libsdl.org/cgi/docwiki.cgi/WikiLicense

Okay. It may be worth adding a redundant note that, since the SDL itself
is not public domain, you may not post code snippets from the SDL onto the
wiki (eg. “here’s where the windx5 and windib drivers handle this
differently …”). It’s redundant, but may not be obvious to a casual
reader.

Good point, I thought that was covered under the clause about not
posting copyright materials to which you do not own the copyright.

By posting to the http://libsdl.org wiki you are placing your posting
in the public domain. That is, you are giving everyone the right to do
what they will with your posting.

You agree to take full responsibility for your postings. By posting
here you are certifying that you have the legal right to post what
your are posting, and, that you take full legal responsibility for
what you write.

I can’t speak about enforcability–I don’t really know anything about
it. I’ll only point out my impression: saying “by doing this and that,
you agree to this and that” doesn’t seem binding; I can say “no I don’t!”
(By replying this message, you agree to send me a pizza. Oops, I guess
that’s just a false assertion. :slight_smile: It’s just an impression, though, and
I wouldn’t know how to fix it, so I’ll leave it at that.

It may or may not be enforceable. IANAL. Nor am I a court of law. But
people know what it means and they generally will comply with what they
agreed to.

Posting of spam, unauthorized advertising, hate speech, pornography,
obscenity, copyright materials for which you do not own the copyright,
stolen property, any material that is illegal, or anything not related
to SDL may result in immediate loss of posting privileges.

If all posted materials are released into the public domain, then you
can simplify to “… copyrighted materials”. If you release a work into
the public domain, you’re giving up your copyright; it’s no longer
copyrighted material. (At least, that’s my understanding.)

Yes, that is redundant, but I want to make it clear that can post
copyright material that you own.

	Bob PendletonOn Tue, 2004-08-24 at 15:52, Glenn Maynard wrote:

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:10:20AM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:


±-------------------------------------+

Bob Pendleton wrote:

Posting of spam, unauthorized advertising, hate speech, pornography,

Why do certain people always put a note about pornography into their
policy/agreement/rules statements? In how far is that relevant? So you
wouldn’t object if I posted photos of dead mice, upload my holiday
videos or my newest and greatest farts as FLAC? Don’t you think that "spam"
and “unauthorized advertising” do already cover pornography? Why don’t you
simplify this to “material with no obvious relation to SDL”? I’m really
getting sick of this “no pornography” mantra. I don’t even think there’s
any relevant definiton of “pornography” but I’m almost certain, you
would consider a bare female(!) breast as such. However, it’s completely
comprehensible that a bare breast has absolutely no relation or relevance
with SDL. At least, the latter is much easier to grasp than the former.–
Christian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20040824/70109668/attachment.pgp

Okay. It may be worth adding a redundant note that, since the SDL itself
is not public domain, you may not post code snippets from the SDL onto the
wiki (eg. “here’s where the windx5 and windib drivers handle this
differently …”). It’s redundant, but may not be obvious to a casual
reader.

Good point, I thought that was covered under the clause about not
posting copyright materials to which you do not own the copyright.

It’s covered, and obvious to a careful and rational reader, but may not be to
casual readers (who probably don’t tend to even think about copyright at all).

If all posted materials are released into the public domain, then you
can simplify to “… copyrighted materials”. If you release a work into
the public domain, you’re giving up your copyright; it’s no longer
copyrighted material. (At least, that’s my understanding.)

Yes, that is redundant, but I want to make it clear that can post
copyright material that you own.

At least–as a nitpick–change “copyright” to “copyrighted”; copyright isn’t
an adjective. (Less important, since this is part of an informal list of
rules, not a legal document.)On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:16:28PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:


Glenn Maynard

Bob Pendleton wrote:

Posting of spam, unauthorized advertising, hate speech, pornography,

Why do certain people always put a note about pornography into their
policy/agreement/rules statements? In how far is that relevant? So you
wouldn’t object if I posted photos of dead mice, upload my holiday
videos or my newest and greatest farts as FLAC? Don’t you think that "spam"
and “unauthorized advertising” do already cover pornography? Why don’t you
simplify this to “material with no obvious relation to SDL”? I’m really
getting sick of this “no pornography” mantra. I don’t even think there’s
any relevant definiton of “pornography” but I’m almost certain, you
would consider a bare female(!) breast as such.

No, actually I do not consider naked people to be pornographic. There
is, at least in the US, a legal binding definition of pornography. You
might want to look it up. Using that definition the owners of a company
and California were convicted of a crime because their site was visible
in a backwoods town in the middle of the bible belt.

However, it’s completely
comprehensible that a bare breast has absolutely no relation or relevance
with SDL. At least, the latter is much easier to grasp than the former.

And, a naked breast may have a solid relationship to SDL if it is used
as part of a demo of 3D modeling.

You know, you made a damn good point. I changed the license to match.

	Bob PendletonOn Tue, 2004-08-24 at 16:48, Christian Biere wrote:


±-------------------------------------+

Fixed that, still thinking about the other.

	Bob PendletonOn Tue, 2004-08-24 at 17:14, Glenn Maynard wrote:

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:16:28PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:

Okay. It may be worth adding a redundant note that, since the SDL itself
is not public domain, you may not post code snippets from the SDL onto the
wiki (eg. “here’s where the windx5 and windib drivers handle this
differently …”). It’s redundant, but may not be obvious to a casual
reader.

Good point, I thought that was covered under the clause about not
posting copyright materials to which you do not own the copyright.

It’s covered, and obvious to a careful and rational reader, but may not be to
casual readers (who probably don’t tend to even think about copyright at all).

If all posted materials are released into the public domain, then you
can simplify to “… copyrighted materials”. If you release a work into
the public domain, you’re giving up your copyright; it’s no longer
copyrighted material. (At least, that’s my understanding.)

Yes, that is redundant, but I want to make it clear that can post
copyright material that you own.

At least–as a nitpick–change “copyright” to “copyrighted”; copyright isn’t
an adjective. (Less important, since this is part of an informal list of
rules, not a legal document.)


±-------------------------------------+

There now seems to be a lot of discussion as to the terms of use of the
Wiki as well as the terms of documentation distribution, this is good,
but it’s brought me to some pretty obvious conclusions. Ergo…

Concerning the Wiki TOS

The Wiki is going to be moderated. Offenders are never going to be
extremely persistent unless they’re robots. Unless the person(s)
empowered to do so, actually take someone to court for misusing the
Wiki, the specificity of the legalese in the TOS is never going to
receive the kind of attention we’re giving it now.

Concerning the documentation distribution license

Is anyone really opposed to just releasing them into the Public Domain?
(Is anyone concerned about someone profiting from this work?) If there
are objections, might I just fall back on my perspective on the TOS. As
before, I can’t really see many situations where we are ever going to
end up in a court room about how someone was distributing our
documentation (perhaps someone will accuse the Wiki of containing
stolen content; in which case the license under which we’re
re-distributing the Wiki’s contents really isn’t going to make a
difference.)

I apologize if my email seems… judgmental or pretentious. I only mean
to perhaps save all of us some time and headaches (and quietly rebel
against the bureaucracy surrounding our inappropriately capitalist
intellectual property system :wink:

  • Donny VisznekiOn Aug 24, 2004, at 7:20 PM, Bob Pendleton wrote:

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 16:48, Christian Biere wrote:

Bob Pendleton wrote:

Posting of spam, unauthorized advertising, hate speech,
pornography,

Why do certain people always put a note about pornography into their
policy/agreement/rules statements? In how far is that relevant? So you
wouldn’t object if I posted photos of dead mice, upload my holiday
videos or my newest and greatest farts as FLAC? Don’t you think that
"spam"
and “unauthorized advertising” do already cover pornography? Why
don’t you
simplify this to “material with no obvious relation to SDL”? I’m
really
getting sick of this “no pornography” mantra. I don’t even think
there’s
any relevant definiton of “pornography” but I’m almost certain, you
would consider a bare female(!) breast as such.

No, actually I do not consider naked people to be pornographic. There
is, at least in the US, a legal binding definition of pornography. You
might want to look it up. Using that definition the owners of a company
and California were convicted of a crime because their site was visible
in a backwoods town in the middle of the bible belt.

However, it’s completely
comprehensible that a bare breast has absolutely no relation or
relevance
with SDL. At least, the latter is much easier to grasp than the
former.

And, a naked breast may have a solid relationship to SDL if it is used
as part of a demo of 3D modeling.

You know, you made a damn good point. I changed the license to match.

  Bob Pendleton


±-------------------------------------+


SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

There now seems to be a lot of discussion as to the terms of use of the
Wiki as well as the terms of documentation distribution, this is good,
but it’s brought me to some pretty obvious conclusions. Ergo…

Concerning the Wiki TOS

The Wiki is going to be moderated. Offenders are never going to be
extremely persistent unless they’re robots. Unless the person(s)
empowered to do so, actually take someone to court for misusing the
Wiki, the specificity of the legalese in the TOS is never going to
receive the kind of attention we’re giving it now.

Concerning the documentation distribution license

Is anyone really opposed to just releasing them into the Public Domain?

I think we are all coming to the same conclusion here. The new TOS
places everything in the public domain.

(Is anyone concerned about someone profiting from this work?) If there
are objections, might I just fall back on my perspective on the TOS. As
before, I can’t really see many situations where we are ever going to
end up in a court room about how someone was distributing our
documentation (perhaps someone will accuse the Wiki of containing
stolen content;

In that case we remove the content. The new license says the person who
post it is legally responsible for posting it. I have no idea if that
would stand up in court, but it will allow Sam to point a finger at
someone else. ;}

in which case the license under which we’re
re-distributing the Wiki’s contents really isn’t going to make a
difference.)

I apologize if my email seems… judgmental or pretentious. I only mean
to perhaps save all of us some time and headaches (and quietly rebel
against the bureaucracy surrounding our inappropriately capitalist
intellectual property system :wink:

Not at all. I think this is an issue that must be discussed. I, for one,
welcome all comments. Remember I’m just the guy who volunteered to put
up the wiki, I don’t own it or operate it. I’ve taken on the job of
getting it completely organized. But, Sam is the owner/operator and has
the legal responsibility. I’m just trying to tie up loose ends and get
everything set up so that both Sam and the community are happy with it.

	Bob PendletonOn Wed, 2004-08-25 at 03:37, Donny Viszneki wrote:
  • Donny Viszneki

On Aug 24, 2004, at 7:20 PM, Bob Pendleton wrote:

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 16:48, Christian Biere wrote:

Bob Pendleton wrote:

Posting of spam, unauthorized advertising, hate speech,
pornography,

Why do certain people always put a note about pornography into their
policy/agreement/rules statements? In how far is that relevant? So you
wouldn’t object if I posted photos of dead mice, upload my holiday
videos or my newest and greatest farts as FLAC? Don’t you think that
"spam"
and “unauthorized advertising” do already cover pornography? Why
don’t you
simplify this to “material with no obvious relation to SDL”? I’m
really
getting sick of this “no pornography” mantra. I don’t even think
there’s
any relevant definiton of “pornography” but I’m almost certain, you
would consider a bare female(!) breast as such.

No, actually I do not consider naked people to be pornographic. There
is, at least in the US, a legal binding definition of pornography. You
might want to look it up. Using that definition the owners of a company
and California were convicted of a crime because their site was visible
in a backwoods town in the middle of the bible belt.

However, it’s completely
comprehensible that a bare breast has absolutely no relation or
relevance
with SDL. At least, the latter is much easier to grasp than the
former.

And, a naked breast may have a solid relationship to SDL if it is used
as part of a demo of 3D modeling.

You know, you made a damn good point. I changed the license to match.

  Bob Pendleton


±-------------------------------------+


SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl


SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

±-------------------------------------+