Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch wiki being moved

[Thomas Lord]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

"Thomas" == Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:
            

    Thomas> The main issue is license compatibility.

Well, GPLvANYTHING is incompatible with Wikipedia :-), as well as all
FSF-owned documentation.  If you're looking for compatibility over the
broad range of possible applications of wiki content, shouldn't you be
advocating a permissive license?  :-)
  

Quite possibly.  By nature, wikis invite the authorship
of a given page to become quite muddied.   A default,
highly permissive license might be a good choice.

On compatibility, I'm also thinking about
copying Wiki content into Arch documentation or code.
Perhaps that issue is not important in practice, though.

It might be nice to have technological features that
permit there to exist "controlled authorship" content
on a wiki -- stuff that isn't just open season for editing --
and let authors pick any reasonable license.  Some blogs
(e.g., flickr) have a feature like that and it seems to work
nicely in that context.   In a wiki, it might be nice to
have a feature which collects a license affirmation and
contact info from editors when they change content
that doesn't use the default license.

"GPLv2 only" was an unfortunate choice (better? ;-) 
because it assured incompatibility between wiki content
and Arch code.    So, no extensive copying into comments
or built-in documentation.

    Thomas> I know it is potentially divisive, especially re Linus --
    Thomas> but, y'know, there *are* other kernels....

Linus, Linux, and kernels in general are irrelevant to any Arch
licensing decisions as far as I can see.  I simply wanted to point out
that the "gratuitous screw you" blade is sharp on both edges.

  

All three edges.   (1) My choice to use GFDL for the original tutorial
was a poor one.   (2) The FSF has really muddied up their other good
work by their stance on documentation licensing.  (3) The choice of
GPLv2-only for the wiki guaranteed that wiki content would not
be compatible with other Arch project content.

The Linux kernel isn't completely irrelevant.  In general, incompatible
copyleft licenses among projects hurt those who want to use copyleft
more than they do anything else.   Linus is a pretty influential guy
who does a lot of leading by example.   He picked a pretty dubious
fight on this issue and I don't think it's all that far fetched that the
license status of the wiki is, in essence, part of the fall-out from that.

I am concerned that given the FSF's radicalism[1] and the dramatic
changes in certain parts of draft GPLv3 an "or later" *policy* exposes
certain kinds of content to legal risk, for little gain.  On the other
hand, in the context of a code assignment policy, which Arch probably
should have for the usual reasons, code posted to the wiki is of
interest only to the extent that you can contact the author and
negotiate an assignment, after which wiki content licensing is moot.


Footnotes: 
[1]  "Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice."  That's a
compliment.
  

An assignment, partial assignment (enforcement rights), or
affirmation policy wouldn't be a bad idea.   It is probably
not critical for Arch per se because the total amount of code
is, and is likely to remain, small.

There is much to like about the GPLv3 draft.   I'm particularly
pleased with the Affero compatibility (you can require modifiers
to preserve a feature for downloading source), trademark clarifications,
other legal notice clarifications, and yes, the DRM stuff.   I'm not
sure I see how any of that is "radical".   I can see how, if I were
say, Sun, GPLv3 would make it easier for me to liberate Java.

-t