Wiki submission license, credits, and policy.

Matthew East mdke at
Tue Nov 8 17:22:10 UTC 2005

On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 03:15 +1100, Jamie Jones wrote:

> When looking into why my and other authors, authorship credits were
> removed from a document, I was told that it isn't appropriate to put
> authorship credits on the documents. Having not been aware of this, I'd
> contributed documents on the understanding that the wiki in question
> (edubuntu) was governed by
> as listed at the bottom
> here . My understanding of the
> linked license was that it was by attribution, which to me means leaving
> the authorship credits intact unless substantial changes to the content
> have been made.

I'm going to read the licences and do some research on this. Given that
I am a lawyer, it would make sense that I give some kind of view on
this, however I don't feel comfortable doing so until I've researched a

My initial "hunch" is to agree with Corey that the presence of the
revision history contained within the page info is sufficient to comply
with the licence(s).

Obviously from a practical point of view it is desirable that the wiki
contains documentation which isn't cluttered with author attribution,
especially given the "wiki philosophy" that everyone can edit and
improve. If my hunch is wrong, then we'll have to think about what
licence we want on the wiki.

In the meantime, thanks for your contributions, and I'm sorry that you
feel any confusion over the licensing situation is preventing you from
contributing further!

mdke at
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the ubuntu-doc mailing list