[wp-docs] An Amendment

[Scott Merrill]

Mike Little wrote:
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Template:Welcome
> 
> The page has now been changed to clearly state that the COPYRIGHT is
> held by each contributor. This is, and was, the case without any
> statement. It is the law in almost all countries.

Yes, I did that.  If it is the default in almost all countries, then
there's no harm in making it explictly obvious to people who may be
unfamiliar with that default.

> The page also clearly state that "by contributing you expressly agree
> to... the GPL".

 think the ellipses is misleading.  What I wrote in full:
"by contributing you <strong>expressly</strong> agree to make your
contributions available to others according to the terms of the [[GPL]]."

> Please note that GPL is not copyright, and that copyright is not GPL.
> The GPL is a licence. It specifies what other people can and cannot do
> with your work. But note that The GPL requires a copyright holder in
> order to be enforceable.

If we're going to plaster the GPL on the pages, we need to make it clear
that the new contributor is adding their work fully cognizant that it
will be licensed as such.

To me, it's unfair to expect the contributor to already be familiar with
the GPL, and what it permits and forbids.

> Note also that if someone does publish a book derived from the
> contents of the Codex, pointing to the codex as the "source code" is
> not good enough. They must make their own copy and provide that on
> request.

The question I have is what constitutes "source" for a published book?
Would postscript files of the imposed pages suffice?

> Ryan's response on another thread
> (http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-docs/2005-September/000998.html)
> whilst sounding rather exasperated, was factually correct.

Ryan said
"You retain your copyright and agree to license to others under the
terms of the GPL.  Period.  What consultation is required?  If they
don't want to contribute under the license that now stands over the
Codex, they shouldn't contribute.  If they don't understand the GPL,
they shouldn't contribute.  If they are overwrought with fear and doubt,
they shouldn't contribute."

But prior to today we were not making much of an effort to make it clear
to new participants that they were, in fact, agreeing to license their
contributions under the GPL.  It was an implicit understanding at best.
 _WE_ might have known it, but to a new contributor it was very likely
non-obvious.

If they didn't know that was the license -- since there is NO license
declaration anywhere obvious on most documentation pages -- how can we
expect them to abstain from contributing?

> Is everyone satisfied yet?

I don't understand why this is such a polarized issue.  Some folks are
expressing a concern, and working to make the Codex a better place in a
way that makes sense to them.  None of these people are attorneys, and
few of them have dealt with the nitty-gritty of licensing minutae
before.  Those that disagree have been outright _hostile_ in their
reactions.  Why all the negativity?  Why not a collaborative effort to
solve a problem?  Why not a little patience and dialogue, instead of
stand-offish declaratory statements (regardless of how factually correct
such statements may be).

I can infer a few reasons.

-- 
skippy at skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 9CFA4B35
506C F8BB 17AE 8A05 0B49  3544 476A 7DEC 9CFA 4B35