Thanks, this is a good point. I think GDL may very well be the way to go for Arch Classroom classes. We can combine efforts with the Arch Wiki and of course make sure that information is free for others to use. - meskarune ---- On Tue, 05 May 2015 14:38:42 -0400 Alad Wenter<alad@archlinux.info> wrote ---- Hi, I couldn't attend the May meeting due to irregular college hours, but I've read the logs and saw the possible license of classrooms was discussed. I'm attaching a mail from Kynikos confirming how projects collaborating with ArchWiki should indeed keep the same license (as the GNU Documentation License 1.3 describes). The GDL isn't flawless, but it's well established and I think the required logging of changes and attribution of content speak for itself. "Invariant sections" can be added on-demand, but are by no means mandatory. [1] I also believe Kynikos makes a fair point on how both wiki and classroom projects could share efforts (and he did show his enthusiasm towards Classroom in a later email). Particularly in cases when time is too short to prepare a full class, and to reach more people interested in Arch Linux topics. Regards, Alad [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Conditions -------- Oorspronkelijke bericht -------- Onderwerp: Re: ArchWiki: GNU Documentation License Datum: 2015-05-04 12:16 Afzender: Dario Giovannetti <dariogiova@gmail.com> Ontvanger: Alad Wenter <alad@archlinux.info> On 04/05/15 17:31, Alad Wenter wrote: > Hi Dario, > > In the last ArchWomen meeting [1] the license choice for Arch Classroom > [2] was discussed. The GNU Documentation License is an obvious > possibility, as this is the license that ArchWiki uses. > > A question that arised is why precisily ArchWiki uses this license. > ArchWiki:General disclaimer [3] links to the license, but otherwise all > I've found is an explanation in the german ArchWiki [4]. Could you > clarify on the matter? > > Regards, > > Alad > > [1] https://archwomen.org/media/meeting-logs/2015-05-03LOG.txt > [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_classroom > [3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchWiki:General_disclaimer > [4] > https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_... Um... I'll start saying I've always hated all this legal stuff :P When I joined the ArchWiki, it was already under the GFDL, and according to the small research that I published in [1], it has always been since its creation, in fact creating [2] has been the absolutely first edit of all. I don't know "why" that license was chosen over others, but relicensing everything doesn't sound anything feasible to me, so if Arch Classroom has to be hosted in the wiki, it has to bear the same license full stop. In theory a fully compatible license could be used too, but the license statement in the footer of the articles would stay as GFDL, so this doesn't seem a viable option either. Besides, if the Arch Classroom is hosted in the wiki, it's part of it as a subproject, and cannot be considered as a separate project, so it must abide to all the wiki regulations, in addition to the license. I'm referring in particular to duplication of content, which is something that the classroom articles generated copiously in the past and that the wiki staff had to fix, still with some remainders, e.g. [3]. If some wiki articles are not clear, effort should be spent in improving them, not in creating "better" alternative articles. Coming back to the license, it's not very clear to me what's your degree of involvement with the Classroom project, but are you aware of a particular reason why the use of GFDL is questioned? If not, we could all just keep it simple and use our energies to contribute content to the wiki as we've always done, regardless of the license ;) [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchWiki:About#History [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchWiki:General_disclaimer [3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_-_An_Introduction Dario