It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:58 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:52 pm
Posts: 361
Location: UT
I don't care what license is attached, I will ignore it entirely if I decide to use any code from the wiki (seriously). I predict most other people will as well. Knock yourself out, use whatever license gives you warm fuzzies.

(edit)
On second thought, I suggest using whatever license will encourage the most (or discourage the least) number of people to contribute.


Last edited by loopy on Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:28 pm
Posts: 3192
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
For what it's worth (not much), I agree with loopy.

Generally speaking, people aren't going to adhere to whatever license is associated with Wiki content. It's kind of like locks on a door -- they only keep honest people out. A license won't stop the following scenario: Wiki individual XYZ finds some 6502/NES source code online which is copyright or under some license not permitting distribution, and puts it on the Wiki. Author of said code finds Wiki, gets super pissed off, demands logs, threatens legal action, etc... I would say that's much more of a likely situation than someone willingly posting their own code snippets, then 6 months later demanding they be removed for whatever reason.

That said, I don't see anything that's blatantly idiotic about the zlib license, and it seems more or less like it could apply to a Wiki site that contains source code samples/snippets.

Someone already linked the WTFPL, which I think generally is applicable.

Otherwise, I'd say just go with the 2-clause BSD license, which is pretty much "do whatever you want with this as long as you include said disclaimer/license". Because quite honestly, that's what people are going to do in reality (just look at how often people violate the GPL, owners get all pissed off, but nothing ever becomes of it because no one can personally afford to sue the other. You can claim license violations over and over, but it doesn't actually *stop* anyone from violation.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Posts: 3715
Location: Central Texas, USA
I still think many people are missing the point of a license on the Wiki; it isn't to restrict what USERS can do with the content; it's to avoid CONTRIBUTORS from each having individual control over contributed content. I really don't like people like loopy and Roth framing this as some silly issue, as if I and others want to have our special little Wiki that nobody can use content from unless they say "pretty please", when that's not the point at all. The name-calling and put-downs are really out of line; if you have a differing position, state it. I can't figure out why there is post after post addressing the issue of end-users. Who ever proposed a restrictive license for the Wiki, that generated all this?

Quote:
I would say that's much more of a likely situation than someone willingly posting their own code snippets, then 6 months later demanding they be removed for whatever reason.

Yes, exactly.

I like the additional restrictions the zlib license places, basically that anyone using the work make it clear that their work is not the original work, so that people seeking the original work can easily tell the difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19098
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Look at it this way: The zlib license hasn't prevented people from copying zlib itself into, umm, pretty much anything that loads or saves a PNG file.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:15 pm
Posts: 393
blargg wrote:
I still think many people are missing the point of a license on the Wiki; it isn't to restrict what USERS can do with the content; it's to avoid CONTRIBUTORS from each having individual control over contributed content.


Okay, I understand now. Admittedly, I have no idea how these licenses work, so when I hear something about licenses, it immediately makes me think of limited use of content, if that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification on what the license for the wiki would be for.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:56 pm
Posts: 298
the only thing about zlib is i think any license which requires you to include the license itself with distribution is kind of annoying and i doubt many people would honor it

blargg wrote:
I still think many people are missing the point of a license on the Wiki; it isn't to restrict what USERS can do with the content; it's to avoid CONTRIBUTORS from each having individual control over contributed content.


how about a boilerplate like this: (modeled after wikipedia's page bout copyright

Quote:
If you contribute material to NESDEVWIKI, you thereby release the code into the public domain. In order to contribute, you must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either

* you hold the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
* you acquired the material from a source that allows release into the public domain

In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the public domain license for the copies of materials that you place here.


public domain could be replaced with WTFPL or whatever i suppose.


Quote:
All I know is that I want to make something higher quality than "let's just throw stuff together and pretend it'll work well, even though it hasn't so far".


fair enough, i just meant that a lot of the specifics could be ironed out while content is being added. I often see good ideas for sites get bogged down in the details so I was just encouraging some forward movement. but i'm new here so obviously i don't know all the reasons for why yall want things done certain ways :)


Last edited by frantik on Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19098
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
frantik wrote:
well i think any license which requires you to include the license itself with distribution is kind of annoying

People who use the code should know their rights.

Quote:
how about a boilerplate like this

I'd recommend using a boilerplate that has been reviewed by people whose job is the law, such as Creative Commons Zero or Creative Commons Public Domain Certification.

Quote:
i just meant that a lot of the specifics could be ironed out while content is being added. I often see good ideas for sites get bogged down in the details so I was just encouraging some forward movement.

There's a word for this sort of discussion: bike shed. But copyright is one of the things that needs to be settled first because unlike pretty much everything else, it can't just be refactored out of the text of the wiki.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:56 pm
Posts: 298
Quote:
I'd recommend using a boilerplate that has been reviewed by people whose job is the law, such as Creative Commons Zero or Creative Commons Public Domain Certification.


sure.. i just copied and modified one i found on wikipedia but there might be better ones out there

Quote:
But copyright is one of the things that needs to be settled first because unlike pretty much everything else, it can't just be refactored out of the text of the wiki.


true, though i'm pretty sure you could start out with no restrictions or a public domain type license, and get more restrictive if that isn't suitable. but starting out with a restrictive license makes it tough to be less restrictive


i honestly think public domain is best because nobody is going to honor any restrictions they don't like anyways, and nobody has the resources to do much about it. knowing this, there really doesn't seem to be much point in worrying about the details of the license imo.

Just make it clear to contributors that once stuff is added to the wiki, that copy of the code is free for anyone to use or modify, and indeed the code may be modified on the wiki itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:38 pm
Posts: 1517
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
blargg wrote:
I do; I don't want people making contributions to the Wiki, getting angry over something and later requiring that we go through and remove all of his contributions.

...

I still think many people are missing the point of a license on the Wiki; it isn't to restrict what USERS can do with the content; it's to avoid CONTRIBUTORS from each having individual control over contributed content. I really don't like people like loopy and Roth framing this as some silly issue, as if I and others want to have our special little Wiki that nobody can use content from unless they say "pretty please", when that's not the point at all.


I agree with this part. Once the content is available, the contributor shouldn't have any control on it: it's now available to the public without any strings attached and cannot be removed anymore.

blargg wrote:
Yes, except there's no public domain for any current works, so the closest is something like the modified BSD license, the zlib license that tepples linked to, etc. The advantage of these licenses is that they require modified works to be identified as such, so that we don't have the problem of people making their own versions of the Wiki material that isn't clearly not part of it, thus confusing others as to what the primary, reliable source is.

Anyone have a problem with the zlib license?


I'm no license expert so this is where I fail to understand which one is better.

zlib seems fine except for the fact that you need to have the license attached to everything. So I don't know to what extends you need to keep it. For example, that would be annoying to just copy the zlib license in a file for a few lines of code. I just want to find a license that allow me to use the content anyway I want, without the need to copy that license in any file that I may use the original code. I can thanks the contributors in the application, read me etc, in any way I find the most appropriate.

I think what I confuse is the meaning of content: what I'm mostly thinking right now is about the code sample aspect that often comes with tutorial, which I want them to be free of any licenses. The content explaining about something should have an appropriate license to know where the source come from and I have no issue with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Davis, CA
Hey, guys, sorry about the terrible delay. Real life things.

What decisions have been made? Gonna start a new wiki from scratch to avoid the old relicensing problems? It would be nice to use the old content, but legally you have to contact every person who ever made an edit.

I'm gonna upgrade the wiki software to the current version and install the reCaptcha extension. People seem to have good luck with that, and it's pretty popular. If anyone needs an account created in the meantime, let me know and I'll do it.

I'm the owner of the nesdevwiki.org domain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Davis, CA
So reading all the posts, it seems like people want a BSD style free license, like Zlib or the CC Zero. Would it be worth it to try to email every person with a registered wiki account and ask them to re-license their contributions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:38 pm
Posts: 1517
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
atarimike wrote:
Hey, guys, sorry about the terrible delay. Real life things.

What decisions have been made? Gonna start a new wiki from scratch to avoid the old relicensing problems? It would be nice to use the old content, but legally you have to contact every person who ever made an edit.

I'm gonna upgrade the wiki software to the current version and install the reCaptcha extension. People seem to have good luck with that, and it's pretty popular. If anyone needs an account created in the meantime, let me know and I'll do it.

I'm the owner of the nesdevwiki.org domain.


Since we didn't have any news for a while, we were in the process of creating a new wiki on the parodius server. Right now only the accounts were created, no wiki installed yet so we still have time to change the current decision.

If we decide to go back on our decision, first we need another admin(s) for the wiki. The reason we were going to create a new one is because you were not reachable. By having more than one admin, this should ease up this issue when of the admin have some personal things to take care of.

Regarding the licensing, this is a good question. I don't know if it's legal to just apply a license to the current content. It seems a little bit wrong but it's not like we are dealing with company stuff: it's a hobby after all. If we decide to apply a license to all content and someone complain then we could see what we can do.

As for the link, I think it's no that important but it would be nice if the site could be redirected to nesdev.com/wiki. This would make things a little bit more consistent. I think Koitsu can do this but we should confirm again with him.

I don't mind to give up on making a new one if we can put more admin on the original site and we figure out what to do with the current content. I don't have any inclination for a specific side, either way is fine with me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:28 pm
Posts: 3192
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Banshaku wrote:
As for the link, I think it's no that important but it would be nice if the site could be redirected to nesdev.com/wiki. This would make things a little bit more consistent. I think Koitsu can do this but we should confirm again with him.


If you're referring to redirecting nesdevwiki.org to nesdev.com/wiki/ -- most of the work has to be done by atarimike. The four options as I see them:

1) His hosting provider might be able to set up a HTTP redirect (this is done on the webserver), or he himself might be able to (if it's Apache, you can accomplish it using .htaccess and Redirect/RedirectMatch directives)

2) Point the DNS A record for nesdevwiki.org and www.nesdevwiki.org to 72.20.106.40. I'd need to know when this was done, after which I could make changes to our web server configuration to redirect the above to nesdev.com/wiki/

3) Point the DNS servers for nesdevwiki.org to ns01.sc1.parodius.com, ns02.sc1.parodius.com, ns0.xname.org, and ns1.xname.org, and from then on I have authoritative control over where the DNS points, but atarimike himself would still own the domain. I'd need to know when this was done, obviously, since I'd have to make DNS server changes and web server changes on my side

4) I can request a domain transfer for ownership of nesdevwiki.org to my own DNS registrar, which gives me control over the whole thing from the ground up

It doesn't matter to me either way, but these are the options as I see them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Posts: 3715
Location: Central Texas, USA
Banshaku wrote:
Regarding the licensing, this is a good question. I don't know if it's legal to just apply a license to the current content. It seems a little bit wrong but it's not like we are dealing with company stuff: it's a hobby after all. If we decide to apply a license to all content and someone complain then we could see what we can do.

If you were claiming a changed license without contacting the authors, then the license isn't really changed, and the authors can still raise hell. That was the main point of a proper license change, to put everything on clear legal ground.

I wonder how practical it would be to mark current pages as "unknown license", and remove that message from any that have been rewritten. That would allow an incremental transition.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19098
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
blargg wrote:
I wonder how practical it would be to mark current pages as "unknown license", and remove that message from any that have been rewritten. That would allow an incremental transition.

That's the solution that Wikipedia image pages seem to use. Drop a template at the top, and a rewrite from scratch wouldn't use the template.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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