Wiki Content License

Some one asked earlier about the license that is applied to the contents
of the wiki. This is a subject that needs to be addressed. It should
have been addressed earlier. Since this license will be applied
retroactively we need to have buy in from the all the copyright holders.

There are a lot of different open documentation licenses. Just like open
source license they range from very permissive licenses that are very
much like the BSD license to fairly restrictive license that are much
like the GPL. In fact the FSF has the Free Documentation License (FDL)
that is very much like the GPL. Or, it is possible to place the
documentation in the public domain.

A decision needs to be made before we add too much new material to the
wiki and the decision needs to be acceptable to the original doc project
authors.

	Bob Pendleton-- 

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

i say put it in public domain, we want to share our knowledge with eachother
and other people freely on the wiki so cant think of anything more
appropriate> ----- Original Message -----

From: bob@pendleton.com (Bob Pendleton)
To: “SDL Mailing List”
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: [SDL] Wiki Content License

Some one asked earlier about the license that is applied to the contents
of the wiki. This is a subject that needs to be addressed. It should
have been addressed earlier. Since this license will be applied
retroactively we need to have buy in from the all the copyright holders.

There are a lot of different open documentation licenses. Just like open
source license they range from very permissive licenses that are very
much like the BSD license to fairly restrictive license that are much
like the GPL. In fact the FSF has the Free Documentation License (FDL)
that is very much like the GPL. Or, it is possible to place the
documentation in the public domain.

A decision needs to be made before we add too much new material to the
wiki and the decision needs to be acceptable to the original doc project
authors.

Bob Pendleton


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


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

oops disregard my last email., the doc project is moving to the wiki too
right? that might change things…forgot about that.> ----- Original Message -----

From: @atrix2 (atrix2)
To: "A list for developers using the SDL library. (includesSDL-announce)"

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [SDL] Wiki Content License

i say put it in public domain, we want to share our knowledge with
eachother
and other people freely on the wiki so cant think of anything more
appropriate

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bob Pendleton”
To: “SDL Mailing List”
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: [SDL] Wiki Content License

Some one asked earlier about the license that is applied to the contents
of the wiki. This is a subject that needs to be addressed. It should
have been addressed earlier. Since this license will be applied
retroactively we need to have buy in from the all the copyright holders.

There are a lot of different open documentation licenses. Just like open
source license they range from very permissive licenses that are very
much like the BSD license to fairly restrictive license that are much
like the GPL. In fact the FSF has the Free Documentation License (FDL)
that is very much like the GPL. Or, it is possible to place the
documentation in the public domain.

A decision needs to be made before we add too much new material to the
wiki and the decision needs to be acceptable to the original doc project
authors.

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

I recommend anyone considering using the GFDL for any purpose read:

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

I don’t use SDL much, now, and so don’t plan on contributing to the Wiki,
so don’t weigh my opinion as a contributor–I’m only aiming to make people
aware of the serious issues with this license before it’s applied to more
documentation.

I would recommend using the same license on documentation as the code itself;
this simplifies things substantially, and avoids license compatibility issues
between code and documentation; for example, allowing inclusion of code from
the library in the documentation if useful for demonstration.On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:26:38PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:

There are a lot of different open documentation licenses. Just like open
source license they range from very permissive licenses that are very
much like the BSD license to fairly restrictive license that are much
like the GPL. In fact the FSF has the Free Documentation License (FDL)
that is very much like the GPL. Or, it is possible to place the
documentation in the public domain.


Glenn Maynard

There are a lot of different open documentation licenses. Just like open
source license they range from very permissive licenses that are very
much like the BSD license to fairly restrictive license that are much
like the GPL. In fact the FSF has the Free Documentation License (FDL)
that is very much like the GPL. Or, it is possible to place the
documentation in the public domain.

I recommend anyone considering using the GFDL for any purpose read:

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

I read through the position statement and I liked what it said. I
particularly like this part about the what it means for a document to be
free:

Freedoms for Documentation

Analogous to the software program freedoms, we need to articulate the
freedoms required for the subset of software called documentation.

 1. The freedom to read the text, for any purpose.
 2. The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to
    your needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for
    modification is a precondition for this. This includes the
    ability to modify the work to fit in low memory situations,
    reference cards, PDA's, embedded devices, etc. 
 3. Freedom to reformat the document into a preferred format or
    medium (converting to braille, or speech, or hardcopy, or
    postscript, etc). 
 4. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
    neighbor. 
 5. The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements
    to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to
    the preferred form for modification is a precondition for this.
    For program documentation, this implies being able to change the
    documentation to reflect the changes in the program. 
 6. Freedom to translate the text into any other language. 
 7. The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession
    of a copy of the text, confidential.On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 16:53, Glenn Maynard wrote:

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:26:38PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:

I don’t use SDL much, now, and so don’t plan on contributing to the Wiki,
so don’t weigh my opinion as a contributor–I’m only aiming to make people
aware of the serious issues with this license before it’s applied to more
documentation.

I would recommend using the same license on documentation as the code itself;
this simplifies things substantially, and avoids license compatibility issues
between code and documentation; for example, allowing inclusion of code from
the library in the documentation if useful for demonstration.

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