On 6/17/06, Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> wrote:
On 17 Jun 2006 16:19:30 -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
>
> On 6/17/06, Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> wrote:>
> >
> >OK, although I didn't speak about pages, but about implicit license of
> >new contributions (to either old or new pages).
>
> Due to "copyleft", licensing conditions of new contributions to old
> pages must be the same.
This is not very correct. The new contributions may be under GPL v2+,
that is certainly compatible with the old license.
This has been well discussed in the free software community. The
existing condition says, GPL v2 and v2 only. And GPL v3 is not
compatible with GPL v2. Then you cannot relicense these pages.
Including your new contributions to these pages, because your
contributions are derivatives of these pages.
> So we cannot extend the use of GPL v3 or later onto these pages.
And noone suggested this. However if the page changes list 2 contributors
and they both want to relicense, then this would be possible. By placing
new changes under GPL v2+, any possible relicensing is easier, if needed.
If you can be sure there are two contributors only. In a wiki,
especially, it is hard to track down all the authors. And I think
it is sensible to most people that not much efforts are spent in
keeping track of authors of wiki pages. After all, the wiki is a
more informal collection of documents; wiki pages are not
official manuals of Arch and we do not distribute wiki-derived material
together with tla.
In fact, giving that the wiki allows anonymous write, it may be impossible to track down some authors.
If someone is really interested in relicensing a page and tracks down
all the authors to get agreements, I will not oppose relicensing such a
page. But I am not going to be the one tracking down all the
authors...
Regards,
Mikhael.