HI folks,<br>
<br>
Pretty noisy here :)<br>
<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/18/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael E. Hancock</b> <<a href="mailto:michael@hancockdata.com">michael@hancockdata.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Scott Merrill" <<a href="mailto:skippy@skippy.net">skippy@skippy.net</a>><br>> If someone takes the time and effort to distill the Codex into a book, I<br>> say bully for them! I've thought about it. It's not an easy task, but
<br>> it's also not impossible. But how can WordPress and the Codex<br>> contributors effectively assert the copyright of their work if there is<br>> no explicit copyright statement on the Codex?</blockquote><div>
<br>
There is a copyright statement that I forged the last time something
like this came up - we thought it'd be a good idea to use
the GPL for Codex content too.<br>
<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Isn't this the copyright statement?<br><a href="http://codex.wordpress.org/Codex:Copyrights">
http://codex.wordpress.org/Codex:Copyrights</a></blockquote><div><br>
That's the one I put in place.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Since Podz has already 'made a copy of Codex' it seems the discussion is<br>almost a moot point. Is his copy of Codex legal or illegal?
</blockquote><div><br>
It is perfectly legal and valid.<br>
<br>
All content on the Codex should be available freely, as this knowledge
belongs in the domain of the collective commons. Adaptation of the
information for a different purpose should be welcome as well.<br>
I have pretty much stopped contributing effectively due to personal
pressures, and should it be that the stuff I contributed is irrevocably
mine, it would be funny if I wanted it all back - don't you think?<br>
<br>
The hours I put into working on the documentation were justified (by me
- to myself) by the thought that what I was doing was not ephemeral, or
temporary, and that a little effort on my part will go a long way, with
the contributions of others.<br>
<br>
Really, I don't know why re-use of documentation is such a big issue --
look to the developers, who release their code out in the wild - to be
used as seens fit - for other to profit, if you will.<br>
<br>
</div></div><personal opinion><br>
Knowledge is only valuable when it is shared "freely".<br>
If someone wants to make a buck out of it, and not share the proceeds,
then little can be said except that it is no model behavior.<br>
</personal opinion><br><br>
Personal contributions that folks dont want to share freely do not belong in a public information resource. <br>
Moot Point: It is not just you that contribute to the codex - the codex
contributes towards amplifying your effort too. If you
guide/howto/faq/whatever existed outside of the codex, in isolation -
it would be much less useful. It is a symbiotic relationship. The price
you pay to ensure a greater impact for your work is that it will be
reshaped and reused, probably for profit.<br>
<br>
Carthik.<br>
-- <br>Ph.D. Candidate<br>University of Central Florida<br>Homepage: <a href="http://carthik.net">http://carthik.net</a>