GNU Open Content
I said I'd put up the GNU Free Documentation License, but it's just as much up to other contributors as myself. Feel free to discuss below. – Tarquin
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
Tarquin writes: I note with interest that the USA doesn't recognize article 6bis of the Berne Convention, namely so-called "moral rights". This puts an interesting slant on things, as under international law, you have moral rights in what you create, which can not be transferred or licensed.
Since AFAIK this server is in the US, while some writers are out of it, which law applies?
I don't want to put people off from contributing but a legal mind would be handy. Feel free to tell me I'm talking gibberish, but roughly & off the top of my head I'd say that submitting material to the Wiki implicitly grants other contributors the right to make changes, corrections, enhancements and additions. The project as a whole body of work is copyright as open content – this is really (in my mind) to prevent a publisher lifting it verbatim & publishing it in book or magazine form. Something similar happened to MathWorld a while ago, so don't knock it, it could happen when the volume of material becomes sufficiently large. Something like a compiled Help file, that is distributed gratis and fully credits the project & contributors is a different matter entirely :). Of course by then we won't really know who wrote exactly what; hence the implicit agreement that moral rights of the individual contributor are integrated into the project as a whole.
- Copyright is a two-edged sword. If someone posts copyright material WE could be sued, though it's more likely we'd just have to remove it and even more likely that no-one would notice (but that is NO EXCUSE). But copyright also protects the content of this site from being ripped off. I'm not doing this for any financial reward, but I don't want to see someone else make a profit from hard work that people put in here for free.
And BTW, I'm not really a leader. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. ;-) – Tarquin
- So he's a 'cavalier' huh? what do you know? Moose of the world rejoice ! Tao
- I'm not going to secede from the United States ;-), but I will say that I think the US policies on international law are absolute crap. These range from this to land mines to environmental controls. I think most things on the internet are generally considered international. This can be seen by the fact that no one taxes the internet, and so on and so forth. I think putting this out as copywrighted under international standards is good. Birelli
reconn: I uploaded the Creative Commons 'some rights' image (creative_commons-somerights). Thoughts? (er, on cc license use.. not on the availability of the image)
DJPaul: I don't think sublicensing Wiki content you have created is a good idea, even with a fairly lax license.
Mychaeel: While I agree with DJPaul that this is a matter that has to be discussed, I had a first glance at the Creative Commons license and I must admit I like it.
Tarquin: I'm with Mych. The "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" license seems fairly close to our intentions.
DJPaul: Hey, hey! Quit it! :stupid: My qualm was with the issue of sublicensing, not of the actual license.
reconn: Despite the opening line of this page, copyright doesn't need to be obtained. In the act of creating something new or – in this case – writing something, you have the sole right to copy it. It seems to me the essense of the Project Copyright is affirming that the authors retain copyright, but that it's forced open. I want to use Creative Commons as a way to refine and emphasize the freedoms granted to the things I write here.
Tarquin: Quite right. I think it was a Grungeism. Gone.
DJPaul: I'm all confused now, i'm out of here. Bye.
For your considering, I think that it's very unlikely you can get away with redistributing the entire site as a ZIP or a CD without getting the permission from each and every contributor author. At least it's not very ethical. Personally, I'm not very confident that I can stretch the provision very far on MeatballWiki. I merely wanted to provide some reasonable description of what would happen if MeatballWiki had to publish particular pages as static text, such as a standard like MeatBall:ModWiki. – SunirShah
Mychaeel: See Project Copyright (unchanged since almost a year ago) – plus, the discussion on Offline Wiki has been there for a long time before I replaced it by the current page (see older revisions), and our local Wikizens here have been unambiguously supportive of the thought. At the end of the day it's just a temporary copy, like what you're doing all the time with your browser cache.
Mychaeel: In fact, browsing MeatBall:MeatballWikiCopyright, I find: "Additionally, you grant Meatball a non-exclusive perpetual royalty-free universal license to distribute the content in its archives, or distribute the content in a compilation of selected Meatball content. The redistributed material will be timestamped."
CH3Z: Should you have a disclaimer above the edit box on the the edit pages to the effect:
Note: You are hereby knowingly adding information to a publicly displayed document. Please, be respectfull of the intellectual property of others. ??
Mychaeel: There's also a text "Don't create a page just to test whether it works" and people still do it. – It should be self-evident that copyrighted content requires permission to be used anywhere, including the Wiki. If it's not for somebody I doubt adding another note to that effect will change a thing.
DJPaul: Also sounds a bit formal, and might scare would-be contributors off.
pgibbs: Hi. I'm coding my own Wiki for various reasons, and like most Wikis, intend to ship some 'default' pages with it. Can I/do I have permission to base some of the content of these Default pages from pages of a similar nature from the Unreal Wiki (Which wouldn't surprise me if, in turn, that these didn't come from UseMod or MeatBall or somesuch); specifically, most of the text on the following pages (not exactly - situtation and spelling/punctuation/grammar but the text will stay mainly in form) - the Wiki FAQ page, the Sandbox and the New Users Quick Start page.
FYI I have not yet decided what license I'm going to have with my Wiki, but I expect it will be open-source or public domain.
pgibbs: Also, could I gain permission to use those nice little interwiki link icons?
Tarquin: The interwiki icons are just shrunken versions of the site logos – feel free to copy them. You're right, the FAQ was inspired by the Meatball / Wikiwiki version. The Wiki Markup page is borrowed from Wikipedia. The other two were written from scratch for this place. Sure, you can use them. What are you coding your wiki in, BTW?
pgibbs: Thanks. I'm coding it in PHP as a Postnuke module, as the only Wiki that integrates into Postnuke is a very old version of the phpWiki.
Deciding on a definite license
Wormbo: We still don't have a formal license for our content. In the light of the pending switch to MediaWiki we should probably decide on one of the commonly used documentation licenses. Some suggestions in no particular order:
- Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License, which is also used by Wikipedia
- one of the Wikipedia:Creative Commons licenses, probably the by-sa license, which is also used by BeyondUnreal's Liandri Archives.
- Wikipedia:FreeBSD Documentation License
My personal favorite so far is the Creative commons by-sa license with the wiki symbol.
MythOpus: I vote for the Creative Commons license.
elmuerte: I am against FreeBSD DL, it is not compatible with the idea of a wiki (and the license AS IS, isn't usable, the source is not SGML DocBook). CA by-sa is ok'ish, it's sound with the wiki concept. But I prefer a added non-commercial restriction and a separate commercial restriction where a certain amount of "profit" must be "given back" to the project. I'm not for GFDL, because of some of these issues. It would be better to use the GPL.
Haarg: The CC by-sa or by-nc-sa seem the most promising to me. I'd personally leave out the commercial restrictions, but I'm not really a contributor and my main concern is practicality. The current plan is to convert the old content but leave it under the existing terms. Redistributing under a different license isn't viable given the terms as they are currently set.
El Muerte: oops, I meant a separate license for commercial use and not "a separate commercial restriction".
Haarg: Last call for comments on this. I'm still leaning toward by-sa. Can you present a case for why commercial use should be restricted? Having a license set up where the project would receive a portion of the profit doesn't seem very useful, as BU is hosting the site for free.
El Muerte: The idea was that the money would go do BU to "pay" for the provided service. Nothing is stopping a shady character to sell an (e)book which is nothing more than a copy of various UnrealWiki pages. I don't that kind of practices is within the "by the community for the community" spirit.
MythOpus: I was going to say something along the lines of what El Muerte said in his last sentence but didn't know how I would go about saying it. I for one do not want anyone taking code/information off of this "open source" site and have people make money from it when clearly they had no part in it.
Haarg: Ok, thanks for the comments. Seems most would prefer a license that restricts commercial use. I'm going with the CC by-nc-sa license. El Muerte, would you be willing to write up something for an additional commercial use license?
El Muerte: the exact terms about commercial use is going to take some time to properly formulate. But for sake of completeness of terms of usage and contribution we should at least add a notice that the content will also be covered by a license for commercial under a to be determined fee, to be paid to BeyondUnreal in name of the UnrealWiki project. Anyway, I'll first work out the notice for users/contributers so that that angle is covered. After that we can define the exact terms and fee for commercial usage.