non fdl licensed wiki content?

wideeye · 2009-01-24 07:17:16

I noticed that one of our wiki pages doesn't appear to be licensed under the gnu free document license, as it has an "all rights reserved" copyright statement and link to an original off site. This doesn't seem appropriate to me, as it isn't in the typical spirit of a wiki where everyone can edit/copy/fork it.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/A_C … gin_Attack

tomk · 2009-01-24 09:06:36

Good point. Soloport, the original author, is still around here, hopefully he will respond.

wideeye · 2009-02-10 04:12:37

on the page editor it says the following:

Please note that all contributions to ArchWiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (see Project:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

this info would be better placed on the Project:Copyright's page. at somewhere where it can be found besides being buried in the editor.

who needs to give permission? the author of the content? or an arch developer / wiki moderator? If the latter, was such permission given? if not this page - or any like it - should be removed.

It should be both the moderator or developer and the owner of the copyrighted material giving approval before something not under the fdl is allowed. And then only with a notice of what editing and distribution rights are allowed for the page. Could this page be included in an archwiki package?

Xyne · 2009-02-10 04:21:28

Can that information even be copyrighted? It's just a few simple instructions for configuring open-source software.

Side note: I F#@$ING HATE people who try to slap a copyright on every single thing they do.

pointone · 2009-02-10 04:30:21

Please don't waste time discussing this to death. The exact same content can be found by following the link to the Soloport web page: http://www.soloport.com/iptables.html

I suggest we replace the article with a simple link at the end of the SSH article (as I am now doing). The page itself is an exact copy of potentially copyrighted writing, and serves no real purpose if left unchanged. It should be deleted, or re-written.

wideeye · 2009-02-10 07:09:54

Soloport is the creator of these instructions. he can claim all rights reserved and do whatever he wants to do with it. I don't have any problem with that. If copyrighting didn't exist, we wouldn't have open source software as we know it. And it looks like a reasonable claim to me.

To his credit the page is following the rule stated on the wiki copyright page which says everything is fdl unless stated otherwise. And I have no way of knowing if my previous quote from the editor was included when Soloport created or modified the page. So there is no need for a witch hunt.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchWiki:Copyrights

soloport · 2009-02-22 00:15:12

wideeye wrote:

To his credit the page is following the rule stated on the wiki copyright page which says everything is fdl unless stated otherwise. And I have no way of knowing if my previous quote from the editor was included when Soloport created or modified the page. So there is no need for a witch hunt.

Pretty sure am not made of wood.

Original contribution pre-dates the wiki we have today. (Anyone else remember the pain of porting / cleaning up our wiki, way back when? [waves to tomk] )

Have removed the offending Copyright notice. Please. Let's move on...

Allan · 2009-02-22 00:40:17

Great to see that this just needed a bit of a clear up.

Closing.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-01-24 07:17:16

non fdl licensed wiki content?

#2 2009-01-24 09:06:36

Re: non fdl licensed wiki content?

#3 2009-02-10 04:12:37

Re: non fdl licensed wiki content?

#4 2009-02-10 04:21:28

Re: non fdl licensed wiki content?

#5 2009-02-10 04:30:21

Re: non fdl licensed wiki content?

#6 2009-02-10 07:09:54

Re: non fdl licensed wiki content?

#7 2009-02-22 00:15:12

Re: non fdl licensed wiki content?

#8 2009-02-22 00:40:17

Re: non fdl licensed wiki content?

Board footer