Re: lilypond.org copyright and wiki

[Graham Percival]

On 7-Sep-05, at 9:15 AM, John Mandereau wrote:

> I don't mind dual-licensing this page, but the 2nd license has to be
> compatible with the first one (CC-NC/SA), which is certainly not the
> case of the GNU FDL, which allows a commercial usage.

By "the 2nd license has to be compatible", do you mean "I (John
Mandereau) insist on doing this", or "legally speaking, the 2nd license
has to be compatible..." ?

If it's the first, then fine; that is completely within your rights.  
If the second,
then you are mistaken.  _I_ cannot take the existing page and relicense
it, since I don't own the copyright to it (as you contributed some 
material).
But if both of us (and any other contributors) decide to dual-license 
that
material under the CC-NC/SA and GNU FDL... or even a traditional
commercial copyright license... then we are completely able to do that.

> Anyway, why dual-licensing the Mailing lists How To if lilypond.org
> pages are not under a specific license? If they were under the FDL or a
> CC license, it should be mentioned explicitly, so I conclude that
> lilypond.org pages are fully copyrighted by the webmasters, aren't 
> they?

You're right; if the copyright license is not explicitly stated, then 
it's
assumed to be "fully copyrighted".  I don't think this has been an issue
in the past, but we probably should clarify that.

> It's possible that my request for adding a link and announce in the 
> news
> on lilypond.org is premature, because the wiki is still quite immature.

I would advise that we update the wiki link in the documentation 
section,
but don't advertise it in the news yet.

Cheers,
- Graham