Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions

Line 28:

:: The "incrementally" idea is good to me. I believe a not-so-far-from-GPL(v2) license or "compatible" can be ok. Anyway still some shadows (from the "legal stuff" point of view). As already said: RC allowed GPLed code to be here, if cited properly; this means that RC even though mainly licensed with GNU FDL for "direct" contributes, contains (and can contain) also GPLed codes. As said (again), if this was possible (and still possible it seems), then it seems that if I dislike the licensing of RC, I can write my own code on "my site", and then cite it, so I keep my GPL... If it will be no possible in future, it means that "cited GPLed code" must be removed...? (Or special exception should be created?)... --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 18:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

:: FWIW I don't have a whole lot of time for programming hobbies these days (hopefully again soon) but personally I'd be happy to declare anything I, personally, posted here as CC-Attr and leave it at that. And, really, PD would be fine with me - if I didn't want people to use my code, why would I put it on a website that is all about "how to do certain things in a certain language"?. Quite frankly I doubt the sincerity (or sanity) of anybody who puts code world-visible on the internet but then declares they don't want it to spread... Maybe a quick email dashed off to everybody who has contributed and in the best case they all simply agree on a CC-Attr type license and it'll all be really painless...[[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

::: To me (and as long as I can understand legal matters) PD is not acceptable (for "useful" code which is a little beyond the "learning the basic" of a language). I am happy with the idea something I've written can be used by someone else, even to earn moneys; I am not happy with the idea that they can "take" the work as if it were all their own work (maybe PD does not allow this, since the material must remain in the Public Domain... but PD is a rather foggy definition, and the fog density changes from country to country). So a CC or similar with attribution is, to me, the minimal acceptable license. It could be relaxed for "teaching code" (where maybe PD is the best indeed), but I think raising too many exceptions can confuse, and exceptions are needed for some code that "teachs" (everything can) in the RC spirit, but it is also ''original'' and ''useful'' outside the "teaching scope". I think attribution does not harm, and it is reasonable for "publically available" material. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 10:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)