hi guys, just spent 20 minutes looking through the forums on the website, and it seems people are posting howtos and walkthoughs there. whats the general feeling ? is it worth getting in touch with the authors and seeing if they would like to maintain them on the wiki instead ? I know some of them are really mad and we wont / dont want to highlight them too much ( like, gnome-2.16 hacked into a centos-4 machine! ), but there do seem to be a few good ones there too. opinions ? - KB -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
Karanbir Singh wrote: > whats the general feeling ? is it worth getting in touch with the > authors and seeing if they would like to maintain them on the wiki > instead ? If they're worth it - sure. > I know some of them are really mad and we wont / dont want to highlight > them too much ( like, gnome-2.16 hacked into a centos-4 machine! ), but > there do seem to be a few good ones there too. > > opinions ? All for it. What we also could use is a link to the wiki from www.centos.org (Calling Mr. Nelson! Mr. Nelson!) ... Cheers, Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061002/349f1ad9/a...
> just spent 20 minutes looking through the forums on the website, and it > seems people are posting howtos and walkthoughs there. > > whats the general feeling ? is it worth getting in touch with the > authors and seeing if they would like to maintain them on the wiki > instead ? Sounds useful for howtos that are worth it. > opinions ? Something that may be important in the longer run: do we ask that people provide content under a specific license? At this point in time it is still possible to add such requirement, it would be more difficult to do it retroactively. -- Daniel
danieldk@pobox.com wrote: >> opinions ? > > Something that may be important in the longer run: do we ask that people > provide content under a specific license? At this point in time it is > still possible to add such requirement, it would be more difficult to do > it retroactively. Wow. Anyone firm with the (sometimes rather strange) CC wording on their licenses? I never really thought about that for a wiki and I really do have a hard time choosing one of those licences. They have a wiki license (licence or license? What is it?) <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/> - or at least they promote that for usage on Wikis. But is this really what we/you/they/others want? Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061002/98b5ced5/a...
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Ralph Angenendt wrote: >> Something that may be important in the longer run: do we ask that >> people provide content under a specific license? At this point in >> time it is still possible to add such requirement, it would be more >> difficult to do it retroactively. > > Wow. Anyone firm with the (sometimes rather strange) CC wording on > their licenses? I never really thought about that for a wiki and I > really do have a hard time choosing one of those licences. > > They have a wiki license (licence or license? What is it?) > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/> - or at least they > promote that for usage on Wikis. > > But is this really what we/you/they/others want? I use /by-nc-sa/2.5 on my personal site, but /by-sa/2.5/ is fine with me. -- Paul Heinlein <> heinlein@madboa.com <> www.madboa.com
> They have a wiki license (licence or license? What is it?) > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/> - or at least they > promote that for usage on Wikis. Attribution-ShareAlike is a pretty fine license, in the same spirit as the GPL. Though, the GFDL may me a good option too (this is what Wikipedia uses): http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html It seems to work for them. -- Daniel
Hi folks, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote: > whats the general feeling ? is it worth getting in touch with the > authors and seeing if they would like to maintain them on the wiki > instead ? > > I know some of them are really mad and we wont / dont want to highlight > them too much ( like, gnome-2.16 hacked into a centos-4 machine! ), but > there do seem to be a few good ones there too. I say yes, if the information is deemed useful (and "sane" :-)) enough. Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos@br-online.de> wrote: > What we also could use is a link to the wiki from www.centos.org > (Calling Mr. Nelson! Mr. Nelson!) ... You mean there isn't one? Bu all means, let's put one up ASAP... danieldk@pobox.com wrote: > Attribution-ShareAlike is a pretty fine license, in the same spirit as the > GPL. Though, the GFDL may me a good option too (this is what Wikipedia > uses): > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html I say the GFDL is more appropriate, and it's more consistent with the rest of the CentOS project: a GPL operating system ought to have a GFDL Wiki... Best Regards, -- Durval Menezes (durval AT tmp DOT com DOT br, http://www.tmp.com.br/)
Durval Menezes wrote: > danieldk@pobox.com wrote: > > Attribution-ShareAlike is a pretty fine license, in the same spirit as the > > GPL. Though, the GFDL may me a good option too (this is what Wikipedia > > uses): > > > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html > > I say the GFDL is more appropriate, and it's more consistent with the rest > of the CentOS project: a GPL operating system ought to have a GFDL Wiki... I really do mislike the FDL for a wiki - it's much too complicated. It may be great for longer pieces of Documentation, but there's too much legalese in there. Seen from that standpoint the CC licenses are much saner and easier to comprehend. Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061002/b5658c76/a...
Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Durval Menezes wrote: >> danieldk@pobox.com wrote: >>> Attribution-ShareAlike is a pretty fine license, in the same spirit as the >>> GPL. Though, the GFDL may me a good option too (this is what Wikipedia >>> uses): >>> >>> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html >> I say the GFDL is more appropriate, and it's more consistent with the rest >> of the CentOS project: a GPL operating system ought to have a GFDL Wiki... > > I really do mislike the FDL for a wiki - it's much too complicated. It > may be great for longer pieces of Documentation, but there's too much > legalese in there. > > Seen from that standpoint the CC licenses are much saner and easier to > comprehend. i've tried to quickly skim through some of these .... ... and have no clue which way to swing on this. we might need to call in the cavalry on this one :) -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
Karanbir Singh wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote: > >I really do mislike the FDL for a wiki - it's much too complicated. It > >may be great for longer pieces of Documentation, but there's too much > >legalese in there. > > > >Seen from that standpoint the CC licenses are much saner and easier to > >comprehend. > > i've tried to quickly skim through some of these .... > ... and have no clue which way to swing on this. > > we might need to call in the cavalry on this one :) The problem I see is: We're already letting those people who want to add to the wiki jump through several hoops (how did it feel, guys?). If we now require them to also agree to a license, I'd like to keep that license as clean (and lean) as possible. And in my opinion the CC licenses are much easier to understand. The FDL also has different subparts available - which of those would you choose? The "invariable parts" stuff has led some projects to view the FDL as a non-free license (AFAIR debian had a problem there). On the other hand the CC licenses are very vague, and the FSF advises you to *not* use these licenses for documentation or software ... Do we have a lawyer in the house? Or someone who at least understands legalese? My english is pretty okay, but legalese is an area which just blows my mind. As said: I'd opt for practicability and understandability. I have nothing political (or anything else) against CC and the FDL. It's just that I don't understand the FDL - and the license someone puts his stuff under in the wiki has to be understood by that person before he can agree. Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061003/e70de4ff/a...
Ralph Angenendt wrote: > On the other hand > the CC licenses are very vague, and the FSF advises you to *not* use > these licenses for documentation or software ... Ooops. Forgot a link there: <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OtherLicenses> Regards, Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061003/eeb2a31e/a...
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 02:37 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > On the other hand > > the CC licenses are very vague, and the FSF advises you to *not* use > > these licenses for documentation or software ... > > Ooops. Forgot a link there: > > <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OtherLicenses> > > Regards, > > Ralph Personally, I would think that: http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Would be useable ... we would, however, need to create a license page and probably link every wiki page to it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061003/41c7aaec/a...
Johnny Hughes wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 02:37 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > > On the other hand > > > the CC licenses are very vague, and the FSF advises you to *not* use > > > these licenses for documentation or software ... > > Personally, I would think that: > > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ > > Would be useable ... we would, however, need to create a license page > and probably link every wiki page to it. With the CC license we'd have to put that HTML snippet into each page, AFAICS - so there's no real loss there :) Ralph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061003/a99dd9e5/a...
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> And in my opinion the CC licenses are much easier to understand.
Hmmm. What about a BSD-ish license? Some "features" that people see as
drawbacks don't apply to BSDL-ed texts, because "the source" is alway
available. This is what the FreeBSD Project uses:
---
Redistribution and use in source (SGML DocBook) and 'compiled' forms
(SGML, HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF and so forth) with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
1. Redistributions of source code (SGML DocBook) must retain the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
as the first lines of this file unmodified.
2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs,
converted to PDF, PostScript, RTF and other formats) must reproduce the
above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with
the distribution.
Important: THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD DOCUMENTATION
PROJECT "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 FREEBSD
DOCUMENTATION PROJECT 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.
---
s/SGML DocBook/Wiki Text/g
s/FREEBSD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT/CENTOS PROJECT/
IANAL, but this is very easily parsable for me.
-- Daniel