From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 15 19:06:11 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LuGzT-0005Qn-E5 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:06:11 -0700 Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.154]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LuGzP-0005QU-Ph for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:06:11 -0700 Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so165349yxn.46 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:06:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=UmzheUG1XO1tM6favU27kE/5mmgVc9HVMNi3IXRJkMQ=; b=br/gCFderpa+AnYTG3uMxymNJ7XGMz03OtUouEDnun1p0YYK8LSXeABNUDR2+0mLOi lFZpZkZ3RiZ9rN/1cNwNfo2nIyrGaO72ieW/p9g2FOW3BpZXhLGCvtNXWK4ApmjcE7k+ IvOxCagXwWgR5dPKGoyO//iNwVhCsTqXr9cBc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=Cnh92+FOzqOSnCm7H2CWWlfr4ZBYJPybbp7rtBALvc51CfjlmWxh/rUqHuRc/NV4wG GwNkywR/lf3IWV4Tcj9tKEbHNv11RMpjLLk1J+J8fPJNtUF4Agm12DLDgPU/y4YBzX6d J/ju7CLOyOsQLH80TYGJdMsIB154qiWGerKFs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.16.129 with SMTP id o1mr1002314iba.9.1239847566121; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:06:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <537d06d00904150145ub0145earc5998679ce0f5950@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090410073616.GS27979@digitalkingdom.org> <20090410201056.GY27979@digitalkingdom.org> <8763h6sukw.fsf@kronkltd.net> <537d06d00904150145ub0145earc5998679ce0f5950@mail.gmail.com> From: Danny Piccirillo Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:05:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Re: Wiki Copyleft? To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0022152d7ddfc11d830467a28165 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: If we decide on share alike (or not) and to copyleft the wiki, who can add the notice to the site? On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:45, Philip Newton wrote: > 2009/4/14 Daniel E. Renfer : > > Would it be fair to put up a notice saying from this point forward, > > anything contributed to this site will be bound by copyright X. If > > nobody steps forward in the next, say 3 months making a claim to any of > > the material, then it will also be put onder copyright X. > > > > You could post that notice on the site, on the lists, and optionally and > > emails of people you have that you know have contributed, but wouldn't > > X-archive-position: 15465 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: danny.piccirillo@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0022152d7ddfc11d830467a28165 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If we decide on share alike (or not) and to copyleft the wiki, who can add the notice to the site? On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:45, Philip Newton wrote: > 2009/4/14 Daniel E. Renfer : > > Would it be fair to put up a notice saying from this point forward, > > anything contributed to this site will be bound by copyright X. If > > nobody steps forward in the next, say 3 months making a claim to any of > > the material, then it will also be put onder copyright X. > > > > You could post that notice on the site, on the lists, and optionally and > > emails of people you have that you know have contributed, but wouldn't > > be covered by the above. > > > > INAL, so I don't know if something like that would actually fly. It > > seems reasonable though. > > I don't think you can simply take somebody else's content and say > "Licence X now applies to this". Yeah, we definitely can't do that, but the original idea of applying x copyleft to any *new* edits seems legal. It would just be messy because it would be impossible to sort out which material was old and still copyright protected. Still, better than nothing. > As far as the flavor of Copyright X, I say just use whatever Wikipedia > uses. > > > You may or may not know what Wikipedia may be changing their licence > from GFDL to (IIRC) CC-BY-SA; there's a vote on whether to do so > scheduled for sometime soon. Voting actually started a few days ago and my understanding is that they will be dual-licensing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1 mu'o mi'e .filip. > -- > Philip Newton > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > --0022152d7ddfc11d830467a28165 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If we decide on share alike (or not) and to copy= left the wiki, who can add the notice to the site?

On Wed, Apr 15, = 2009 at 04:45, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/14 Daniel = E. Renfer <duck@kronkltd.net>= ;:
> Would it be fair to put up a notice saying from this= point forward,
> anything contributed to this site will be bound by copyright X. If
> nobody steps forward in the next, say 3 months making a claim to any o= f
> the material, then it will also be put onder copyright X.
>
> You could post that notice on the site, on the lists, and optionally a= nd
> emails of people you have that you know have contributed, but wouldn&#= 39;t
> be covered by the above.
>
> INAL, so I don't know if something like that would actually fly. I= t
> seems reasonable though.

I don't think you can simply take somebody else's content and= say
"Licence X now applies to this".

Yeah, we de= finitely can't do that, but the original idea of applying x copyleft to= any *new* edits seems legal. It would just be messy because it would be im= possible to sort out which material was old and still copyright protected. = Still, better than nothing.

> As far as the flavor of Copyright X, I say just use whatever Wikipedia= uses.


You may or may not know what Wikipedia may be changing their lice= nce
from GFDL to (IIRC) CC-BY-SA; there's a vote on whether to do so
scheduled for sometime soon.

Voting actually started a= few days ago and my understanding is that they will be dual-licensing. http://en.w= ikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1

mu'o mi'e .filip.
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@= gmail.com>


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.


--0022152d7ddfc11d830467a28165-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.