Proposed wiki license

SDL Development
20

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
–
±-------------------------------------+