Recently, [jcw] wrote on the tcler's wiki mailing list: My understanding, and intention, for the wiki has always been to make it as freely available as possible (a second goal for me, is to stay out of legal issues). To me, that means that the wiki - which is an original collection of information of more-or-less original contributions - is for all practical purposes in the public domain. I definitely do not "own" it in any sense. At the same time, I do think that those who contribute have an implicit copyright - but by entering their text into the wiki, which is clearly a public resource (and known to be modifiable by anyone), I think one can reasonably argue that they are not placing any restrictions on the further distribution of their information (nor even alteration, for that matter). Not owning it means that whatever I say is no doubt irrelevant - but if it makes your publisher happy: I herewith waive all claims regarding ownership or distribution limitations. Another comforting fact no doubt, is that ActiveState have also included the wiki in full on the Tcl/Tk 2002 Conference CDROM. If someone wants to add a note to the wiki to clarify these issues, or quote me, or whatever, please do - you know how to make it happen :) ---- This means that if you don't like the above conditions, you should feel free to list specific licensing agreement information on software you have created and made available here on the wiki (or anywhere else, for that matter). ---- [KBK] (22 October 2002) - I wonder if the original poster was worried about the possibility that the Wiki might be misappropriated. The experience of MathWorld [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/erics_commentary.html] suggests that a publisher might be interested in picking up the contents, rendering them in book form, and using the copyright on the book as a lever to shut down the original site or extort money from its operators. ---- All code marked with [RS] or [Richard Suchenwirth] is definitely free as can be - do what you wish, just don't blame me ;-) [AM] I emphatically agree with Richard on this point: any code published by me on the Wiki is freely useable, but without warrantees. I can not imagine a situation where I would publish code or text on the Wiki and not allow its usage in this way, but if this should happen, then it will be clearly stated. As I am not a lawyer, I have not much to add to the above. (Let someone with a legal background make sure that the Mathworld nightmare can not happen, though) ---- [LV] Actually, jcw was responding to a request from an author to include the Wikit on a CD attached to an upcoming Tcl book. The problem is, as I understand it, that the publisher requires a clear statement of ownership and release before including material, to prevent subsequent legal problems. In this age where people sue over the silliest things, I can certainly see their concerns. Also, there's the whole "appropriate End User License Agreement" mentality of corporate America (and perhaps elsewhere). ---- [D. McC] The "MathWorld nightmare" happened because the creator of the MathWorld website (as he admits on the above-cited web page) entered into a contract with some unfavorable provisions. These provisions could be, and he says they were, abused by the publisher of a book containing some of the contents of the website. Apparently the contract allowed the publisher to demand that some content be removed from the website on the supposition that, if people couldn't get the content from the website, they would then have to buy the book to get the content. When you write an original work, short or long, in any tangible form (including the contents of a web page), you are automatically the copyright holder. You can then contract various rights in the copyright "bundle of rights" away or give them away, but a publisher can't legally take them from you without your explicit or implicit consent. If you release a work into the public domain, other people get the right to copy and distribute it, etc.--but not the ''exclusive'' right to do so. Something like the MathWorld disaster is legally possible only if you (1) retain the copyright and (2) enter into a contract containing unfavorable provisions, which can be used to restrict access to your copyrighted work in ways you don't want. (If you want more details, you'll have to get them from a copyright lawyer such as Ivan Hoffman .) As for the contents of the Wiki, my best guess is that they're in the public domain since it's understood that anyone can copy or modify them freely--but, if you need actual legal advice rather than just my best guess, be sure to get the advice! ---- RANT: ''I could not possibly care less about the legal whim wham of the wiki... I only care that some people cannot control their control reflex and will go about the wiki '''moving or removing''' the work of others, and then apologise for having upset somebody, but not make it right, because they really don't care. Just keep your f****** hands off of other folks stuff if you can't be responsible.'' [AK]: This rant seems to be authored by [Phil Ehrens]. Damn right. And all my ranting is hereby removed from the public domain, and is entirely retained by me as my own, and anyone caught using my rants for any purpose other than that specifically stated as the intended purpose of the individual rant, and as attached and signed with my 2048 bit pgp signature, will be prosecuted by me and my team of indigent legal para-professionals to the fullest extent beyond the law that the tresspasser upon my rant will tolerate. Everybody start coding in Ruby right now, Tcl is a dead language. ---- So, let's see... if someone is caught using your rant for any purpose other than "that specifically stated as the intended purpose", you hereby declare that you and your thugs will criminally harrass that person "to the fullest extent ''beyond'' the law". (emphasis mine). However, you fail to state a specific intended purpose for this rant. Does this mean that anyone using your rant for ANY purpose will then become the target of your criminal harrassment? Are we allowed to read your rant, is that an approved use? How about mocking it? Oh, and that little bit where I quoted a part of it, was that permitted? --'''[[LeRoi]]''' (this snideness is in the public domain.) ---- [AK]: chat excerpt about this rant ... suchenwi: Phew.. Phil Ehrens is really mad at us - http://mini.net/tcl/4381 (at end) Tomorrow: I think he needs to look in a mirror. Shouting about controlling your control reflex, when the thing that apparently has him so infuriated is that he doesn't have absolute and sole control of the location or presentation of materials that he put into the wiki. suchenwi: Well, he knew the terms for years... suchenwi: Hi Brett! Tomorrow: personally, I'm disturbed by his explicit statement of intent to use any illegal means to harrass anyone who misuses his material on the wiki... suchenwi: I wouldn't take it too serious - he has had verbally aggressive spells in the past (not as big as this one, though), but what could he do? :bschwarz hello...just caught up... bschwarz: He's not really serious, is he (Phil)? aku: I did see some changes to wiki where he apparently removed his material suchenwi: I doubt it. Tomorrow: what can he do? I know not, nor care. What can WE do? I think that the edit page, and footnote page, ought to contain a warning that use of material posted into the wiki cannot be restricted, and Phil should be told that if he's declaring his material unusable, he'd be better off removing it all from the wiki /NOW/ please. aku: Not that it matters to much, the page history still contains the removed text and code suchenwi: Lokks like he is deeply frustrated with Tcl - but I wonder whether he'll get happier with Ruby... Tomorrow: because if he puts something in the wiki that we can't use, anyone reading is is "contaminated" by his "intellectual property".. (refer to the term "clean room implementation") Tomorrow: is he frustrated with Tcl, or with the people? aku: Is he, or is that just part of the rant , as sarcasm ? aku: I certainly cannot tell the difference suchenwi: For how he wrote some time ago, see http://mini.net/tcl/PSE (which he forgot to delete) aku: I wonder, should I copy this chat to the wiki, under the rant ? suchenwi: It is certainly topical aku: Not quite, his wiki home page is still there too, but he removed all code links ... ohm, and it now has the ruby reference too aku: Yes, definitely. Tomorrow: if you like. I, for one, hereby put everything I say in the chat into public domain... aku: Thanks aku: Ok, will do this now ---- [AK]: I consider my contributions to be in the public domain. EE: Mine as well. ---- [Jacob Levy] All my contributions here are in the public domain and covered by the BSD license. Uhhh... which is it? Public domain, or BSD license? They ain't the same. ---- So, the wiki should have a disclaimer at the top: ''Don't spend too much time or effort on anything that you put here, because it will be claimed via copyright by the first commercial entity that identifies it's utility and removed from this site.'' ---- Is that a fact? Tell us, please, which commercial entity claimed via copyright anything that you put here? And what did you do about it? --'''[[LeRoi]]''' Ajuba Solutions claims copyright on everything from this Wiki that winds up in tcllib, smart ass. And Ajuba is owned by Interwoven.