Skip to Content

Admin meeting minutes 8/10/2006

phaeronix's picture

1- Discuss and Accept the AUP amendment to add kickban with certain rules. It will be proposed in a separate thread. Then ballots will be collected and a poll constructed accordingly.

2- Review the backup script, and create a cron job to automatically invoke it, three days of mysql dumps will be stored on the server , copies will be stored on the 4 admins machines, rotating daily on the admins. Document root will be rsynced weekly.

3- collect ballots on the license issue: first whether single default license or one default and choice from list. Then another poll to actually choose the license. Then we will install a module to automatically add a license footer.

4- Recalculate all users' points based on all revisions of all nodes.

5- start testing migration to drupal 4.7

6- Drupal bugfixing : transparent avatar become non-transparent , bidi module.


ikhnaton2's picture

That's GOOD :) Rami

That's GOOD :)

Alaa's picture

I don't think multiple

I don't think multiple licenses should be considered an option until you come up with a solution for pages reusing content that falls under different licenses.

imagine an EGLUG wiki where one has to consult legal rules whenever one wants to merge two pages.


husband of the Grand Waragi Master

phaeronix's picture


All collaborative content will be published under the default license, and no choice will be allowed on these pages. This should be one of the conditions the user has to agree with, during registration.

Alaa's picture

so you are saying license

so you are saying license choice will depend on content type?

but that's still no good, let's say someone posted stuff on a forum post, between the forum post and the comments there where valuable data which someone else wanted to compile in a wiki page.

this would mean that forums and comments should have the same license as the wiki pages or else we can't enforce on license on collaborative content.

same argument for any form based article content type we can come up with.

so this leaves blogposts, event announcements and news, since event announcements and news are done by EGLUG admin/mod team I'm sure they can live with whatever license people choose via the poll.

so only place where this makes sense is EGLUG blogs.


husband of the Grand Waragi Master

phaeronix's picture


Well if you look at it that way, the whole site is collaborative (except blogs). In my point of view I considered collaborative content to be only that in which multiple users can edit the original author's post. This applies to wiki pages only. On the other hand I'd consider recompiling a forum post and its comments to be a genuine effort, so it won't have to abide by the original author's choice of license (in case it is different).

Frankly, I am not sure which is 100% correct. Can't the community decide ?

Alaa's picture

it is not up to you to

it is not up to you to decide legal definitions, almost any reuse of content falls under copyrights.

whether the reuse of forum posts and comments was actual reuse of content (hence a licensed act) or rexpression of the same ideas (hence a non licensed act) is not something that can be answered before the actual act happens and even then might not be easy to deal with.

so far we don't have a license which means we're basically ignoring whatever the law says and granting everyone implicit right to do whatever they want with the content, by adding a license we just formalize and make explicit what was already implicit and add a reasonable request for credit and other such stuff.

if by adding a license we make it complex enough that people actually ignore the license and continue abiding by implicit rules then what's the point?

the whole website is collaborative, that is the point behind it (and that makes perfect sense it's a freaking FOSS community after all), and so the whole website should have a single license (we're not the first collaborative website, we should learn from others you know).


husband of the Grand Waragi Master

phaeronix's picture

I am not deciding legal

I am not deciding legal definitions , I am trying to discuss them. Pardon me for discussing.

Reuse is different as opposed to recompiling.

If you actually write down the bylaws with which we were operating, be prepared for people to challenge it, and maybe ask for their content removed . In that case will you remove their content ? If so, then you lost the value of their contribution and further contributions. If you have a way to allow the content to stay then I think both sides will win.

It can also be done in a way so that it isn't complex. Then people won't ignore it.

The community is collaborative, can't argue with that, and the website is mainly for collaboration, but there are spaces which aren't right ? Therefore we just can't copy someone's decisions.

Alaa's picture

what do you men by reuse

what do you men by reuse vs recompiling? the point is if I copy and paste from a forum post it's reuse. and I think we should be allowed to copy and paste from forum posts and comments without worrying about license conflicts.

you are assuming hypothetical situation in which a member of the community would refuse to post a forum post, comment or review article because of license preference, can't see why you assume this will happen.

so far no one answered my question of how we will deal with derivative content based on two different licenses, please give me a practical solution. or convince me tht we can live without a practical solution.

finally what about comments? do they automatically inherit the node's license? or can I choose license for each comment?

part of the original design goals of EGLUG website was to encourage moving content from the forums and comments to wiki on a regular basis.

note that I'm not discussing blogs here, since I'm hoping blogs won't contain content that people would like to move to the wiki, blogs could hve any kind of license I don't care.


husband of the Grand Waragi Master

phaeronix's picture

If you copy and paste

If you copy and paste only, then that is reuse, if you reword, reorder, or otherwise change, then it's recompiling.

I know that it might be too hard to delineate such a difference, maybe even harder to differentiate them in actual situations.

If a user refuses to post new content due to license choice, then there isn't much we can do. But I am also considering the situation in which a user will request removal of already published content, because of newly applied license restrictions.

IMHO comments should have a single default license, the same license applied to collaborative content.

In the situation where someone is deriving from two differently licensed sources, I think he better get the consent of the authors.

But he has to be actually quoting. If he rewords or rewrites, then the original license might not apply.

Alaa's picture

ok here we go again with

ok here we go again with inventing legal terms.

if the end result can be shown to be based on the original content then it is a form of reuse, it falls under the copyright, the only thing that doesn't fall under the copyright is to completley reexpress the same ideas or to make small quotes.

and even then it's not an easy thing to detect, reordering does not exempt you from the copyright, rewording might or might not.

besides we should be allowed to copy and paste too, it's a wiki wikis work by seeding with little content (stubs) first and then collaboratiovely working on them, to say I can't copy and paste is too limiting.

which is why we freaking vote of the license, we are supposed to get a two thirds majority for this kind of decision anyways, and so far not a single person wrote to say they don't agree with this or that license. ask people to comment on the choices (what if they don't like the two or three choices you offer them? same questions apply no matter what you choose).

ok so now we have a reached a point where the only places you want to offer multiple licenses are forum posts (which tend to be questions anyways), form based articles (like the software review article). and blogs.

do you seriously think people will refrain from posting forum topics and comments due to license choice? refrain from filling a simple survey like form due to license choice?

the wiki and hence most of our articles and the comments are where most of our important content reside.


husband of the Grand Waragi Master

phaeronix's picture


Msameer said that doing the users' points recalculation will be easier in drupal 4.7 , so should we prioritize the upgrade ?

ikhnaton2's picture

Alaa and Pharonix, Why

Alaa and Pharonix,

Why are you complicating things?! License shouldn't be so confusing... Just make wikis, forums and comments under one license. Bloggers can choose their own license in their blogs.

The point is which license? GPL, GPL2, Creative Common or what? Someone get the differences in simple points and make a poll to choose the best for the community.

Alaa's picture

يا سلام جبت

يا سلام جبت التايهة

your suggestion is what I've been saying since the begining, phaeron didn't think it is good enough. hence the discussion.


husband of the Grand Waragi Master


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dr. Radut | book