It is currently Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:26 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 18202
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
In another topic, we are considering writing a new NES and 6502 programming tutorial, and I'm trying to figure where it shall be hosted. I want to make sure that the text of the tutorial can be lawfully reused elsewhere.

So what is the default license for contributions to the wiki? Somehow I don't remember that ever being specified in the six years since it was last asked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 4:17 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 5582
Location: Seattle
As far as I'm concerned, my contributions are approximately WTFPL/CC0. MIT/CC-BY would be nice, but I don't require it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:36 am
Posts: 2804
Location: Tampere, Finland
IANAL, but since the default license of the wiki hasn't been (?) explicitly specified, I believe that each contributor holds rights to their respective contributions. Since the wiki doesn't force contributions under any specific license, I don't really see a problem with you specifying whatever license you'd like to use on your tutorial page.

_________________
Download STREEMERZ for NES from fauxgame.com! — Some other stuff I've done: kkfos.aspekt.fi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:03 pm
Posts: 5037
Location: Canada
Under usual licensing for these kinds of things, contributors always retain the full right to use their contributions elsewhere. i.e. if the wiki license happened to forbid commercial use of its material, this restriction doesn't actually apply to the contributor. I don't think our license should forbid this, I'm just using that as an example.

I'm personally I'm in favour of some kind of very permissive license. I think there's more value in allowing code samples from the wiki be used freely and commercially than not (e.g. the idea of selling something may motivate somebody to make stuff). I don't care about attribution or modification notices for anything I added to the wiki, I just want the knowledge to be freely available.

No license at all is a liability. In particular it would help if someone were to try to claim ownership of their contributions and demand they be removed. (I think it's unlikely to happen, but it's a case that a license would protect against.) If the license explicitly puts contributions into a permissive license, they wouldn't have grounds to do this, so far as I know.

Assigning a license now, retroactively, of course is a breach of existing contributor's rights, but I would expect that all current contributors would be willing to comply. I don't know what good legal practice is for this kind of action (put up a notice somewhere for a period of time for past contributors to object?). Practically speaking, if you change it right now, you limit the group of people that could take issue with it to only the people who have contributed to it so far, so at least it's a relatively small group.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:36 am
Posts: 2804
Location: Tampere, Finland
Since the wiki requires registration, and thus a valid email address, we could try contacting all of the contributors about assigning a license to the material. I wouldn't expect to get many objections. I'd also expect most of the major contributors to be reachable via email or here in the forums.

I do agree that assigning a license would be a good idea, if it's possible.

_________________
Download STREEMERZ for NES from fauxgame.com! — Some other stuff I've done: kkfos.aspekt.fi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 18202
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Let's get it started: diff


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:04 pm
Posts: 734
tepples wrote:
six years since it was last asked.

Hmm...
In this post, I wrote:
...huh, I didn't know the NesDev wiki didn't have a big contributor licensing schema to prevent people from taking their ball(edits) and going home...unless the little warning of how things will be "mercilessly edited, etc." on the Edit page is deemed sufficient.
...guess I didn't quite ask.

Licensed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:04 pm
Posts: 734
This Topic's Action Point Is Still important.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group