I don't see why this sort of thing would need to be burdened with a viral licence (or any sort of licence). We want people to be able to change this text as they will and to use the changes on any sort of web page regardless of whether the text is used in an open wiki, a closed wiki, a proprietary book, or whatever. If there is no situation that we can imagine when we would want to deny use of this text, we should not have a licence. I think we should edit the text we will release to remove anything that we don't want publicised. -- BayleShanks
While I have issues about releasing CommunitySolution and PeerReview as it stands, perhaps we could write completely new pages for release. There is no reason why our discussion here has to match what we release, and I don't think it would be appropriate for documentation purposes anyway. If we create a set of pages explicitly for the purpose of redistribution, then we could even satisfy the evil cryptonauts on this site and consider new copyright licenses. However, I personally agree with you, Bayle, that using a cryponautic license is probably overkill; of course, HardSecurity usually is. -- SunirShah
Sure, we can rewrite CommunitySolution and PeerReview for release. We just want to include enough philosophy for people to understand that the software has mechanisms for the community to regulate content. I expect the "released" versions would be pretty short, like one or two paragraphs if even. -- BayleShanks
It is my belief that we should keep this snapshot small and not include too many pages with our own philosophy. PeerReview, I think, should go in (drastically edited, though), just because the basic idea of some sort of PeerReview is a big part of WhyWikiWorks. Maybe CommunitySolution too, but only the parts about CommunitySolutions being more desirably than TechnologySolutions (this is to expand upon the idea of how and why wikis are built to let the community regulate content instead of the technology).
MeatballWikiCopyright is suggested so that other sites can use it as a template for their own copyright, if they choose. MeatballWiki for the same reason (I think that page is exceptionally friendly and so maybe others would like to use it) -- we should edit MeatballWiki to make it clear that it is a template if we do this.
Let's release TextFormattingRules and UserPreferences? immediately (or at least ASAP) under public domain -- they are in DocumentMode, they are only technical documentation (rather than philosophy), and I can't think of any reason that anyone would object to their contributions to those pages being released.
Like TextFormattingRules and UserPreferences?, they are in DocumentMode, they are only technical documentation (rather than philosophy), and I can't think of any reason that anyone would object to their contributions to those pages being released.
Did you really want to ask this on the MeatballWikiBasicsSnapshot page, Mark? By the way, I agree with you, Mark, that damage is impossible (well, highly improbable). Cliff was the one who was concerned. I don't think that this page needs to be the snapshot, personally. -- SunirShah
Snapshot pages as they stand now have to change as the point is to write straightforward documentation not to discuss theory. That doesn't mean you cannot comment on the original page, which is PublicallyEditableInterMap (in more detail hint, hint). -- SunirShah
Thanks Sunir, moving this stuff
Also, I like the Snapshot to be frontended - SnapshotPublicallyEditableInterMap? - md
See also the alternative idea of PermissionTagging.