[wp-docs] More on Copyright

[Ryan Boren]

Podz wrote:

> Ryan Boren wrote:
>
>> Vanity links are not comptaible with open source licenses.  The GPL 
>> requires that copyright headers be maintained; that's about it in 
>> terms of credit.  It's about the source being free.
>
>
> So "Source: codex.wordpress.org" would suffice ?
>

I think FSF has some recommendations on copyright headers.  I'll look it up.

>
>> That's what lawyers are for.  If you ever need one, hire one. 
>
>
> And that's where things fall down... because individually we cannot 
> afford to. I certainly can't. Now I know that the point I made about 
> writing a page was just an illustration, and that a single page 
> wouldn't be worth the hassle to either steal or sue over, but it was 
> the wider issue I was looking at - which is that I am on my own.

There are plenty of folks out there who help open source projects with 
issues like this.   Every situation has been resolved without going to 
court.  IMO, copyright assignment doesn't buy you much.  About the only 
projects that do it are one's controlled by companies who want to be 
able to release the code under multiple licenses (free and 
proprietary).  GNU also requires it for projects under their umbrella.

>> Understandable, but I don't think it's particularly necessary or 
>> worth it.  Copyright assignment tends to drive contributors off and 
>> adds bureaucracy.
>
>
> Who owns Codex ?

Matt owns Codex the site.  He's hosting it and paying the bills. The 
content is owned by each contributor.

> Given that it's mediawiki code, a name and a bunch of words which when 
> taken together have some sort of value, who owns it ? Does this matter 
> to this conversation ? "Possession 9/10ths of the law ?"
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
> I'm not knowledgeable enough about things but if even they say GPL and 
> manuals are better not mixed, then something, somewhere could yet make 
> things difficult ?
>
Yes, it's not the most ideal license for documentation, but it's what 
we're stuck with, I believe.  Relicensing old content can be a pain.  
Changing the license for new content is possible. And big contributors 
like you and Lorelle could dual-license all of your existing 
contributions.  That would move a lot of the content forward to a new 
license.  It's up to ya'll.  I'm not a big contributor to Codex and 
don't really care what the license is as long as it's open.

Ryan