On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:17:38 -0400 Loui Chang wrote:

On Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:42 +0100, Ananda Samaddar wrote:

...

I notice it's all under GFDL 1.2. I'm wanting to use a Gentoo doc for the Arch Security stuff but it's under a CC-SA attribution license which is incompatible with GFDL. Would it be possible to allow Wiki content under a CC licenses? I can't see it being too controversial a choice, as in CC licenses are now widely accepted. Even the venerable RMS uses CC licenses for his personal stuff as does a lot of the FSF/GNU stuff.

I don't think anyone would sue you for it.

Fair enough, the Arch Wiki states though that all content is under GFDL1.2 in the page footer. Would it be possible to change this to also allow Creative Commons? In other words officially endorse it in the Arch Wiki. Ananda

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:19:09 +0200 Linas wrote:

I assume this ask to have GFDL & CC-BY-SA content coexist at the wiki. The existing content can only be relicensed by its authors. The GFDL 1.3 gateway expired on August 1, 2009.

I really need an answer on this as soon as possible. For new Wiki articles would it be OK to add a footer in the article stating that it is licensed under a CC license and not the GFDL? Any official word on this please from the Arch wiki admins or developers. If you're not willing to officially allow CC licenses could the 'override' paragraph I'm suggesting for new content only be all right? thanks, Ananda

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Ananda Samaddar wrote:

...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:19:09 +0200 Linas wrote:

...

I assume this ask to have GFDL & CC-BY-SA content coexist at the wiki. The existing content can only be relicensed by its authors. The GFDL 1.3 gateway expired on August 1, 2009.

I really need an answer on this as soon as possible.  For new Wiki articles would it be OK to add a footer in the article stating that it is licensed under a CC license and not the GFDL?  Any official word on this please from the Arch wiki admins or developers.  If you're not willing to officially allow CC licenses could the 'override' paragraph I'm suggesting for new content only be all right?

I honestly don't know who is going to reply to you. If you were to just change the license I also don't think you'd have anyone come after you anytime soon.

Who is in charge of the wiki these days I'm not sure, but I'd try to get someone's attention besides mine- maybe Pierre or Aaron would be the right guys.

I was also waiting for someone more knowledgeable with regards to the wiki. If it's my say-so you want, I don't see a problem with adding *additional* content under CC. But switching all *existing* content to CC might be a problem. Is this sufficient?

On Wed 30 Jun 2010 00:15 +0100, Ananda Samaddar wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:56:39 -0500 Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

I was also waiting for someone more knowledgeable with regards to the wiki.

If it's my say-so you want, I don't see a problem with adding *additional* content under CC. But switching all *existing* content to CC might be a problem.

Not really, I'm wanting to adapt a Gentoo document to Arch's needs. This document is CC by SA attribution licensed. The whole Wiki article would have to be under the same license and not the GFDL. The CC and GFDL licenses are not compatible. Would it be ok to add a footer paragraph to the Wiki article stating that the WHOLE article is CC licensed and to disregard the GFDL footer at the bottom? This would only be for new Wiki articles. I am not proposing re-licensing existing Wiki articles.

Just do it.

No Objections from my side

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:56:39 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Ananda Samaddar wrote:

...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:19:09 +0200 Linas wrote:

...

I assume this ask to have GFDL & CC-BY-SA content coexist at the wiki. The existing content can only be relicensed by its authors. The GFDL 1.3 gateway expired on August 1, 2009.

I really need an answer on this as soon as possible.  For new Wiki articles would it be OK to add a footer in the article stating that it is licensed under a CC license and not the GFDL?  Any official word on this please from the Arch wiki admins or developers.  If you're not willing to officially allow CC licenses could the 'override' paragraph I'm suggesting for new content only be all right?

I honestly don't know who is going to reply to you. If you were to just change the license I also don't think you'd have anyone come after you anytime soon.

Who is in charge of the wiki these days I'm not sure, but I'd try to get someone's attention besides mine- maybe Pierre or Aaron would be the right guys.

I was also waiting for someone more knowledgeable with regards to the wiki.

If it's my say-so you want, I don't see a problem with adding *additional* content under CC. But switching all *existing* content to CC might be a problem.

Maybe not. Wikipedia did the same; see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre