[wp-docs] More on Copyright

[Podz]

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 ?

> This comes up all the time with open media (as opposed to open source) 
> folks.  Open source folks have been at it for a good while and have 
> tread this ground.  Advertising clauses, vanity links, and such are a no 
> no.  It's about the code being free, and such links impinge freedom.  

It's a learning curve )

> 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.

> 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 ?
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 ?

> There are several good resources that cover copyright and open source.  
> I follow groklaw all the time.
> 
> http://groklaw.net/

I found that earlier. I can make sense of mental health law, but this is 
  ... different.

Thanks for your reply :)

P.