Re: [RP] Re: Licensing terms for ratpoison info page

[Shawn Betts]

Joe Corneli <address@hidden> writes:

>    > I know tacit assumptions like this are the sorts of things that can
>    > get people in trouble, so that's why I wanted to say something
>    > explicit on the wiki.  It might not have been quite explicit enough
>    > however.
> 
>    Ayaayay! You can't do that. I'm changing it back. If we are to have some
>    different licensing than that of the FDL, it should say so in
>    conjunction with the page editing forms. Also, we would have to collect
>    agreements from everyone affected (or at least try).
> 
> Well, I would rather like it if the implicit assumptions that lead
> to the creation and distribution of the contrib directory were good
> enough. But maybe they aren't.  I agree that it would be best to
> have the licensing terms stated clearly on the page editing forms.
> I also think that it it worth while to try to conform to the
> protocol suggested by the FDL.  I really can't imagine that anyone
> who's added code to the current RP wiki would object to that code
> being licensed under the GNU GPL.  Patches against RP in particular
> are 100% dependent on RP, so they need to be GPL themselves by the
> "viral clause".  This same thinking doesn't apply to scripts, but
> like I said, I don't think anyone will object...
> 

If the licensing issue is such a big deal, why not just write new
documentation on the wiki? Enumerate each command and leave it blank
until someone fills it in. Most commands take a couple sentences to
describe and boom you're done.

-Shawn