-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 03/16/2017 04:10 PM, Sam Kuper wrote:
On 16/03/2017, Timothy Pearson tpearson@raptorengineering.com wrote:
On 03/16/2017 02:27 PM, Sam Kuper wrote:
My understanding is that means that much (maybe all) of the documentation in the Coreboot wiki is proprietary (at least, in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions). IANAL, though.
This is a good point. For what it's worth, anything contributed by Raptor Engineering to the Wiki should be considered at least dual licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and GDFL; we'd love to see our content remixed / improved by the community as long as attribution and share-alike is maintained.
Thanks. I guess that would be this content?
https://www.coreboot.org/Special:Contributions/Tpearson
Looks like there are only 172 additional Coreboot wiki contributors to account for :)
Yep :-) I just figured that if the major contributors on this list specified a license we'd be well on our way to fixing this!
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) https://www.raptorengineering.com
On 16/03/2017, Sam Kuper sam.kuper@uclmail.net wrote:
Ideally, Coreboot would dual-license the content under the GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license compatible with content from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites.
Actually, CC BY-SA 3.0 alone would be better. That is because copying CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed content from Stack Exchange, and then publishing it under both CC BY-SA 3.0 *and* GFDL, would be a breach of CC BY-SA 3.0.
On 16/03/2017, Timothy Pearson tpearson@raptorengineering.com wrote:
On 03/16/2017 04:10 PM, Sam Kuper wrote:
Looks like there are only 172 additional Coreboot wiki contributors to account for :)
Yep :-) I just figured that if the major contributors on this list specified a license we'd be well on our way to fixing this!
For the (re-)licensing effort to succeed:
- the remaining 172 people need to be contacted;
- there needs to be a way to keep track of who has been responded, and what their response was.
Contacting the wiki contributors would seem to require the involvement of a person with privileged access to the wiki, such as Patrick Georgi or Stefan Reinauer (CC'd). In the first instance, perhaps that person should attempt to reach those users via MassMessage:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:MassMessage
Collating replies: I'm not sure. Make a table on the wiki with two columns: one with all the usernames in, and one for the users to put their signatures in to indicate willingness to license their contributions under the proposed terms? Any better suggestions?
Also: sanity check. Does anyone else here besides me and Timothy feel that making the wiki documentation available under a free culture license would be a good idea?
-
Sam Kuper -
Timothy Pearson