From migo@homemail.com Fri Mar 12 16:38:42 2004 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:38:42 +0000 From: Mikhael Goikhman To: James Blackwell Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org Subject: Re: Fwd: [Gnu-arch-users] Recent wiki changes Message-ID: <20040312163842.GA5786@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> References: <20040312030931.GA3621@mqatrombone.net> <20040312032613.GA8791@inframix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040312032613.GA8791@inframix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Status: RO Content-Length: 3692 Lines: 94 On 11 Mar 2004 22:26:13 -0500, James Blackwell wrote: > > > ----- Forwarded message from Adrien Beau ----- > > > > From: Adrien Beau > > > > Some unidentified visitor edited the licence on the wiki > > FrontPage, switching from "either version 2 of the License, or > > (at your option) any later version" to just "version 2 of the > > License", and then the FrontPage was locked down. > > I returned the site to the original, proper license (GPL Version 2). I > then locked down the page so that people could not arbitrarily, illegally, > change the license to "GPL Version 2 or later". > > > If the wiki administrator did that, I'd like an explanation, and > > at least a debate on the license change. If not, then I'd like > > the situation reverted. > > The wiki has always been "GPL Version 2". Some twit keeps *illegally* > changing the license to "GPL Version 2 or later." So after changing it > back for the fifth or sixth time, I locked the page down, based on advice > from others in #arch on freenode. It was me who added "or later" bit when the new wiki was mostly empty. It was a good time to change the licence to the proper one. Then I did it for the second time (no fifth or sixth time) when I saw some anonymous user removed it without any comment. I added a comment: restore the GPL version 2 "or later" bit, please don't remove without discussion By discussion I meant Wiki discussion, not irc discussion. > The only way the site could be changed from "GPL Version 2" to anything > else (including "GPL Version 2 or later") is if every single contributor > were contacted and were willing to agree in writing that a license change > was acceptable. I am not willing to perform this paperwork. > > Unfortunately, in these days and times, I don't see any way around it. If > you can come up with an alternative which enforces the proper license, we > can discuss it. I strongly believe all current Wiki contributors (the ones with contact info) are willing to use "GNU GPL, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version", since this is what most of projects use. This is a GNU project after all, there is no reason to distrust FSF. This must be changed. As it is now, most of GPL'd projects can't include the parts of this wiki into their documentation. This is hardly the intention of the Wiki contributors. Thank you for understanding, and I hope this issue will be solved ASAP for the benefit of everyone here. The proper way to solve it, is to verify that the main 10 contributors agree, set the licence to what it was most of the time on the new wiki (version 2 or later) and ask the folks who do not agree to remove their content. No need to be inflexible. http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/CategoryHomepage lists the contributors. If your name is on this list, please reply with one word "Yes" or "No". If your name is not listed (sorry!) then please only reply if your answer is "No". Adrien Beau - Yes Daniel Neri - ? David Sterba - ? Jean Helou - ? Johannes Berg - ? Mikhael Goikhman - Yes Miles Bader - ? Olivier Grisel - ? Ollivier Robert - ? Steven Dickinson - ? Stig Brautaset - ? Not listed on the page (please add a word CategoryHomepage to your personal page to be listed on that page): Christian Thaeter - ? Fabio Ferrari - ? James Blackwell - ? Jeffrey Yasskin - ? Jukka Zitting - ? Lode Leroy - ? Matthieu Moy - ? This voting should really take place on Wiki, but since FrontPage is locked, this is impossible. Hopefully it will be done quickly here. If we have 10 "Yes" and no single "No", the licence should be changed and FrontPage unlocked. Regards, Mikhael.