Talk:Site move
Tyler Drake and Dan Littlejohn, so far. David Greaves made it too
In the long run, I'd like to preserve the history from the old site as much as possible, for copyright purposes. Being unofficial, the old site didn't take note of copyright much; I'm soliciting suggestions for what copyright policy to choose for here.
GFDL seems to be problematic; I'm leaning towards a Creative Commons license, but not sure which one's the best choice yet. --Baylink 03:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, mythtv.info has Important License Information (which, to be fair, is no longer linked to on the front page). However there is obviously copyrighted stuff in there that shouldn't be (eg the excerpts from the Myth FAQ). I wonder if there's a facility for having a default license for most pages and their subsequent edits and one or more alternative licenses (eg for the FAQ) for pages with author only ACLs?
nb, to be clear, I'm not talking about dual-licensing, I'm talking about allowing specific pages/sections to be licensed differently.
I guess Baylink knows this but for others, see [Guide to the CC dual-license]
--DavidGreaves 22:32, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you mean RKulagowski's FAQ document (the 'official' documentation), then that has ceased to be a problem, since he's consented to us incorporating that material here in the new wiki. My goal is to have everything under one license which is sufficiently unrestrictive to permit all the uses we might like to make of it. --Baylink 18:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This really needs to be updated, but since we're (hopefully) nearly done anyway, let's not bother for now. --TylerDrake 20:16, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
We seem to be underway. (Though I'd thought we were locking the old wiki before turning this one loose for cleanup -- we're getting change traffic over there still.) Havs it been decided how we're going to split up the cleanup work here? Moving, categorizing, etc...
--Baylink 20:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Did we ever decide on a license? --TylerDrake 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I recommend CC_BY_SA2.5 or CC-WIKI, it's offshoot; we'd better nail that down now, though.
--Baylink 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, we need to nail it down before the users get here. It seems that [http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-sa
