what is the license of the text at www.osdev.org/wiki ?

Kevin McGuire · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:47 am

I was wondering because I can not understand:

http://www.osdev.org/wiki/OSDevWiki:License

Quote:

The content contained here was intended to be free. The amount of freedom will be clarified though a community selected license (see the polls). All authors of existing material will be attempted to be informed of the new official license declaration. Any author not in agreement of the new license(s) can have their content removed or choose to dual license their work. This does not apply to forum content in which all posts are owned by the author.

Why would I want to dual license if we choose the public domain?

\\\edit\\\
I am seriously asking a question. I have mental disability and I am unable to understand complex subjects easily so I was truly wanting someone to tell me. I am lost and need help.

chase · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:11 am

Kevin McGuire wrote:

I was wondering because I can not understand http://www.osdev.org/wiki/OSDevWiki:License

Quote:

Any author not in agreement of the new license(s) can have their content removed or choose to dual license their work.

Why would I want to dual license if we choose the public domain?

Most likely you wouldn't. I'm just trying to not sound like a dictator (if you don't agree I don't want your content!). If we do choose CC or something then it would make sense to dual license, still 6 days to go on the polls.

mystran · **Joined:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:08 am **Posts:** 670

Brynet-Inc wrote:

Code:

--- licence     Sun Apr 29 11:45:51 2007
+++ licence2    Sun Apr 29 11:50:44 2007
@@ -2,6 +2,6 @@
 limitation, in part or in whole, for whatever purpose subject to the
 following conditions: There is no warranty expressed or implied, and
 neither the maintainer nor any of the authors take any responsibility
-for correctness and cannot be held responsible for any direct, indirect
-or unrelated damages caused by any use of the information provided. If
+for correctness and cannot be held liable for any direct, indirect or
+unrelated damages caused by any use of the information provided. If
 your cat dies, plane crashes, and/or house burns don't come blaming us.

I think it sounds like a Public Domain licence with a liability clause :lol:

..

You realize that since I told I'm not a lawyer, anything I say is not legal advice, and if you use the text I provided as a license for something, you should have a lawyer check that it actually makes sense, and if it doesn't make sense, you can't blame me for that.

And Kevin, no I've not had any courses, but I do read local laws sometimes, and I guess I'm one of the few people that actually read licenses properly when I want to use something.

Brynet-Inc · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:27 am

mystran wrote:

You realize that since I told I'm not a lawyer, anything I say is not legal advice, and if you use the text I provided as a license for something, you should have a lawyer check that it actually makes sense, and if it doesn't make sense, you can't blame me for that.

I have no plans to use your licence... I was just making corrections.

Kevin McGuire · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:47 pm

Most likely you wouldn't. I'm just trying to not sound like a dictator (if you don't agree I don't want your content!). If we do choose CC or something then it would make sense to dual license, still 6 days to go on the polls.

I just found this: haha.

Watch my impression of grass growing:
.......!
.....!.!
...!.!.!
.!.!.!.!

Ok. Here is a trail of ants:

.x....x.xx...x.x......(headed towards you're butt for a snack)....()()

Ok. Just having fun being devious.

anon19287473 · **Joined:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:27 pm **Posts:** 97

wait... the wiki's not in free domain or GPL'd or something. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! It's a wiki for christ's sake!!! I thought that was the idea, free info.

Solidus117 · **Joined:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:29 pm **Posts:** 23

Yeah, I'll have to throw my vote to the PD camp. There is no reasonable way for any of us to enforce license violations, so why go to the trouble *of* licensing it?

"Information wants to be free!"

Combuster · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2007 12:04 am

If you have looked at the polls, you'll see that there is an overwhelming majority of votes for public domain licensing.

I think its time Chase comes along to officially announce that...

Kevin McGuire · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2007 2:45 pm

Test Material
I can understand someone just feeling a certain way, but I have never been able to understand this argument - and a lot others.

Quote:

wait... the wiki's not in free domain or GPL'd or something. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! It's a wiki for christ's sake!!! I thought that was the idea, free info.

Just take a close look at the words in bold above in the quote, and tell me if this person has any idea what they are talking about?

Here is another one.

Quote:

Yeah, I'll have to throw my vote to the PD camp. There is no reasonable way for any of us to enforce license violations, so why go to the trouble *of* licensing it?

"Information wants to be free!"

IQ Test Question
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the text in bold in the two quotes above? I would hope some of he people who voted for public domain can tell me.. hopefully the two posters..

Warning
(and I do not want another single argument about this license vs this license directed at me because that is not what I am talking about so if you feel compelled to write something like that then just look at what I am putting in bold in the two quotes above..)

Brynet-Inc · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2007 3:00 pm

The Wiki was designed for helping people..
What people do with the content is irrelevant.. And I'm guessing by their "free" statement, They don't want any restrictions on the content.

The is a small community as it is.. We shouldn't be scaring everyone with long extensive and scary licences.

It's a good resource we have... What possible reason would anyone have to encumber it all with licences?

Kevin McGuire · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2007 3:12 pm

Quote:

The Wiki was designed for helping people..
What people do with the content is irrelevant.. And I'm guessing by their "free" statement, They don't want any restrictions on the content.

...

Can you answer my question above in a direct way, pretty please?

Just to help you out I am not arguing what license we should use for the Wiki, but arguing two people's reasons for picking the public domain license.

^^ important: read ^^

Brynet-Inc · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2007 3:14 pm

Kevin McGuire wrote:

Can you answer my question above in a direct way, pretty please?

Just to help you out I am not arguing what license we should use for the Wiki, but arguing two people's reasons for picking the public domain license.

^^ important: read ^^

You know.. you're a real pain in the *** :lol:

Kevin McGuire · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2007 3:15 pm

Its a really simple question.

What is wrong with using:

"information needs/wants/should-be free"

As a argument to using Public Domain?

Kevin McGuire · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2007 3:30 pm

I got the answer:

Information is not protected by a copyright!

Tyler · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2007 1:34 am

Kevin McGuire wrote:

I got the answer:

Information is not protected by a copyright!

Too true... luckily most people here (You and I excluded) are not up their own arses far enough to conisder their contributions to be anything more than expression of said "free" information. So wording it with the term free and not clarifying it really won't do any damage.

OSDev.org

what is the license of the text at www.osdev.org/wiki ?

Who is online