Wiki License

[Matthew Flaschen]

This is very important.  I'm really not interested in continuing to
contribute to non-free documentation.  Moreover, I have serious doubts
about the claim (on the linked page) that Canonical holds copyright on
my contribution.  Obviously, the copyright statement itself is
irrelevant.  I hold copyright under Berne as soon as I create the work,
unless I were an employee of Canonical (no) and it were a work for hire.
 For Canonical to gain control of my copyright, I would have to
explicitly assign it to them.  Since Canonical doesn't hold copyright on
the community wiki, they have no right to unilaterally relicense it,
making choosing a license even more urgent.

Matthew Flaschen

Matthew East wrote:
> Dear Matthew (whoa, too many Matthews)
> 
>> On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 04:15 -0500, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>> Can you clarify and improve this situation by specifying a free license
>>> for the community documentation?
> 
> See this page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WikiLicensing
> 
> Sadly, the spec has been waiting for approval by the Community Council
> for approximately 6 months, and despite continued pressure from me, they
> haven't got around to looking at it yet. I will continue to bug them.
> 
> Matt

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20061213/275d09a5/attachment.pgp>