[Bf-docboard] Copyright issues on new pages

[Ewout Fernhout]

Hello,
As far as I know, everything on the blenderwiki is automatically
released under the OCL. But I agree that should be more obvious to the
user. In any case it should be the other way around, the user should
state it DOESN'T want this... otherwise all is fine.

Ewout

On 7/9/06, Joe Eagar <joeedh at gmail.com> wrote:
> [cross-posted from manual talk page]
>
> Hi. For the new node editor pages I wrote for the reference section, I
> had to figure out how to deal with licensing issues. It would be nice if
> there was an official way for an author to explicitly put new pages
> under the manual's license. Myself, I added the following to the talk
> page of each page I wrote:
>
>
> Copyright Notice (not really)
>
> This document (Reference/Windows/Nodes/Composite_Nodes
> <http://mediawiki.blender.org/index.php/Reference/Windows/Nodes/Composite_Nodes>)
> can be licensed under either a) the license of the official Blender
> Foundation version of the Blender User Manuel, or b) under the Open
> Content Licsense
> <http://mediawiki.blender.org/index.php/Meta/Licenses#Open_Content_License>.
> Which at the moment are one and the same.
>
> This notice is to forstall potential copyright issues pertaining to
> printing the reference section. Since I don't believe printers will
> print a document with ambiguous licensing.
>
>
> As you can see, it states that my pages are available for licensing
> under either whatever license the manual is using, or the Open Content
> License. This assumes that if the two ever differ, they will remain
> compatible, which seems a reasonable assumption to me.
>
> The reason I worry about this, is that I think it's important that the
> manual's licensing remains clear for printing. It would be sad, if parts
> of the manual couldn't be printed because someone didn't license new
> pages then dropped off the face of the earth.
>
> Of course, as far as I can tell, already-licensed pages that are edited
> or revised won't cause any problems, since they've already been licensed
> under Open Content.
>
> Joe