New look for haskell.org: MediaWiki

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
83 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Simon Marlow
Neil Mitchell wrote:
>>A link from the wiki to where? The wiki is supposed to take over the
>>haskell.org site. But maybe we can still have directories that are not
>>part of the wiki.
>
>
> Some of the pages on the Haskell site simply *can't* be moved over to
> the wiki, Hoogle <http://haskell.org/hoogle/> springs to mind, given
> that its a server side application.

That's right, there's no point importing content that is already
generated from source such as the Haskell Report.  And we don't plan to
wikify the whole of the GHC site, just some bits of it.

Ashley has a point though - we couldn't quote from the Haskell report on
the wiki, or indeed quote source code from pretty much anywhere (most
code has a non-PD license) if the whole wiki is PD.  The wiki-wide
license should contain the words "unless explicitly stated otherwise in
the content" or somesuch, that way we can give attribution when we quote
code.

I realise this contradicts some of what has already been said, but there
is a conflict: making it easy to use content from the wiki implies a
single license, but making it easy to use content from elsewhere on the
wiki implies multiple licenses.  A good compromise seems to be to have a
default license (PD as suggested), but allow it to be overriden,
sparingly, by explicit attribution in the content itself.

Cheers,
        Simon

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Malcolm Wallace
In reply to this post by Ashley Yakeley
Ashley Yakeley <[hidden email]> writes:

> "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.
> This applies worldwide.
>
> "In case this is not legally possible:
>
> "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any
> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

That seems very strange.  It is actually *two* licences, and it raises
an explicit doubt about which one applies in any given jurisdiction.

It would be much clearer just to omit the first "public domain"
part completely, and use the second licence only.

However, it also needs a disclaimer of warranty, and (as others have
noted) a note about explicitly quoted material which may have other
copyrights and licences.  How about:

  "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without
   any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law,
   or explicitly claimed in the work for some clearly identifiable
   portion of the work.  No warranty of accuracy or fitness-for-purpose
   is implied for this work."

If there is a need for further explanation of the phrase "unless such
conditions are required by law", then it could be linked to text such as:

   For example, laws may prevent you from using this work to defame,
   libel, or slander any person.  If the work quotes material from
   other sources and explicitly identifies a copyright or licence for
   that material, you must respect those conditions.

Regards,
    Malcolm
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Sebastian Sylvan
In reply to this post by Simon Marlow
On 1/12/06, Simon Marlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Neil Mitchell wrote:
> >>A link from the wiki to where? The wiki is supposed to take over the
> >>haskell.org site. But maybe we can still have directories that are not
> >>part of the wiki.
> >
> >
> > Some of the pages on the Haskell site simply *can't* be moved over to
> > the wiki, Hoogle <http://haskell.org/hoogle/> springs to mind, given
> > that its a server side application.
>
> That's right, there's no point importing content that is already
> generated from source such as the Haskell Report.  And we don't plan to
> wikify the whole of the GHC site, just some bits of it.
>
> Ashley has a point though - we couldn't quote from the Haskell report on
> the wiki, or indeed quote source code from pretty much anywhere (most
> code has a non-PD license) if the whole wiki is PD.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but is quoting really disallowed when it
comes to source code? I know that in most countries it's perfectly
legal to quote parts of book and articles, wouldn't the same apply to
source code?

/S


--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Philippa Cowderoy
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:

> I'm not a copyright lawyer, but is quoting really disallowed when it
> comes to source code? I know that in most countries it's perfectly
> legal to quote parts of book and articles, wouldn't the same apply to
> source code?
>

That doesn't necessarily allow you to place said code in the public
domain.

--
[hidden email]

The task of the academic is not to scale great
intellectual mountains, but to flatten them.
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Wolfgang Jeltsch
In reply to this post by Malcolm Wallace
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 14:41 schrieb Malcolm Wallace:
> [...]

> However, it also needs a disclaimer of warranty, and (as others have
> noted) a note about explicitly quoted material which may have other
> copyrights and licences.  How about:
>
>   "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without
>    any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law,
>    or explicitly claimed in the work for some clearly identifiable
>    portion of the work.  No warranty of accuracy or fitness-for-purpose
>    is implied for this work."
>
> If there is a need for further explanation of the phrase "unless such
> conditions are required by law", then it could be linked to text such as:
>
>    For example, laws may prevent you from using this work to defame,
>    libel, or slander any person.  If the work quotes material from
>    other sources and explicitly identifies a copyright or licence for
>    that material, you must respect those conditions.

Does this mean that you have to adhere to the licenses of cited material?  
What if you have just a short citation.  In Germany, for example, you have
"the right to cite" so that you don't have to accept any licenses for small
portions of copyrighted work.  (I suppose that this is similar in other
countries.)

Longer parts of other work should better not included but linked to, shouldn't
it?

> Regards,
>     Malcolm

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Malcolm Wallace
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[hidden email]> writes:

> >   "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without
> >    any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law,
> >    or explicitly claimed in the work for some clearly identifiable
> >    portion of the work.  No warranty of accuracy or fitness-for-purpose
> >    is implied for this work."
>
> Does this mean that you have to adhere to the licenses of cited material?  

I don't know.  In the absence of information to the contrary, I
suppose yes.  One cannot assume free rights over other people's works.
However, if you have legal certainty that you do not need to adhere
to a licence in certain situations, that is up to you.

> What if you have just a short citation.  In Germany, for example, you have
> "the right to cite" so that you don't have to accept any licenses for small
> portions of copyrighted work.  (I suppose that this is similar in other
> countries.)

Even if you have the right to cite small portions of copyrighted works,
I expect the law might require some form of attribution for those
quotations?  I don't know.  But these are the kind of conditions that
cannot be waived by a general grant of unconditional usage.  However,
my suggested text is meant to imply that if you add a quotation to the
wiki, you are the one who is responsible to attribute it correctly,
and to identify if it has a more restrictive license, or alternatively
that the quotation is sufficiently small that no attribution/license
is required.

The idea is that the /reader/ can be as free as possible to do what
they like with the text, because anything non-free will be clearly
identified for them.  Thus the burden of identifying non-free material
falls on the /author/.

> Longer parts of other work should better not included but linked to,
> shouldn't  it?

Indeed.

Regards,
    Malcolm
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Ashley Yakeley
In reply to this post by Simon Marlow
In article <[hidden email]>,
 Simon Marlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ashley has a point though - we couldn't quote from the Haskell report on
> the wiki, or indeed quote source code from pretty much anywhere (most
> code has a non-PD license) if the whole wiki is PD.  The wiki-wide
> license should contain the words "unless explicitly stated otherwise in
> the content" or somesuch, that way we can give attribution when we quote
> code.
>
> I realise this contradicts some of what has already been said, but there
> is a conflict: making it easy to use content from the wiki implies a
> single license, but making it easy to use content from elsewhere on the
> wiki implies multiple licenses.  A good compromise seems to be to have a
> default license (PD as suggested), but allow it to be overriden,
> sparingly, by explicit attribution in the content itself.

Let's start with a mandatory "public domain/all rights given away". If
we find we need to include copyrighted material, it can be changed later
without too much trouble. I don't want to keep the GFDL there any longer.

--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Ashley Yakeley
In reply to this post by Scott Turner-4
In article <[hidden email]>,
 Scott Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I wonder, though, whether adding a disclaimer is needed. If you take the "by"
> out of the Creative Commons license, as ajb suggested, then the major feature
> remaining is the disclaimer. Along with that is verbiage which makes the
> license much longer in order to require that the license remains associated
> with the "work".

The Creative Commons project helpfully provides a public domain
declaration, that may be preferable to the earlier one I cited (although
it doesn't have a disclaimer either):

<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>

"The person or persons who have associated work with this document (the
"Dedicator" or "Certifier") hereby either (a) certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge, the work of authorship identified is in the
public domain of the country from which the work is published, or (b)
hereby dedicates whatever copyright the dedicators holds in the work of
authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain. A
certifier, moreover, dedicates any copyright interest he may have in the
associated work, and for these purposes, is described as a "dedicator"
below.

"A certifier has taken reasonable steps to verify the copyright status
of this work. Certifier recognizes that his good faith efforts may not
shield him from liability if in fact the work certified is not in the
public domain.

"Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to the detriment of the Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived."

--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Ashley Yakeley
In reply to this post by Malcolm Wallace
In article <[hidden email]>,
 Malcolm Wallace <[hidden email]> wrote:

> How about:

I would much rather use a known license than one cobbled together by
various non-lawyers. Currently I am considering:

<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Donate_to_the_public_domain>

Application of the license will be mandatory for all contributions to
the wiki (but not other places on haskell.org). If that needs to be
changed, it can be done so later.

--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Wolfgang Jeltsch
In reply to this post by Ashley Yakeley
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 18:58 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:
> [...]

> The Creative Commons project helpfully provides a public domain
> declaration, that may be preferable to the earlier one I cited (although
> it doesn't have a disclaimer either):
>
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>
>
> "The person or persons who have associated work with this document (the
> "Dedicator" or "Certifier") hereby either (a) certifies that, to the
> best of his knowledge, the work of authorship identified is in the
> public domain of the country from which the work is published, or (b)
> hereby dedicates whatever copyright the dedicators holds in the work of
> authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain. A
> certifier, moreover, dedicates any copyright interest he may have in the
> associated work, and for these purposes, is described as a "dedicator"
> below.
>
> "A certifier has taken reasonable steps to verify the copyright status
> of this work. Certifier recognizes that his good faith efforts may not
> shield him from liability if in fact the work certified is not in the
> public domain.
>
> "Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
> and to the detriment of the Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
> intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
> perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
> vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
> relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
> to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
> Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
> may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
> built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
> or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
> yet been invented or conceived."

Huh, this is rather complex.  Do we understand all the implications this
license would have?  In addition, it uses this ugly word ( :-) ) "public
domain" instead.

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Wolfgang Jeltsch
Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2006 19:07 schrieb Wolfgang Jeltsch:
> [...]

> In addition, it uses this ugly word ( :-) ) "public domain" instead.

I meant: "again", not: "instead".

> [...]

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Ashley Yakeley
In reply to this post by Wolfgang Jeltsch
In article <[hidden email]>,
 Wolfgang Jeltsch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Huh, this is rather complex.  Do we understand all the implications this
> license would have?  In addition, it uses this ugly word ( :-) ) "public
> domain" instead.

Yeah, I prefer the other one, especially as this one seems US-specific.
I shall write it as:

"The contributor releases this work into the public domain. This applies
worldwide.

"In case this is not legally possible:

"The contributor grants anyone the right to use this work for any
purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by
law."

--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Aaron Denney
In reply to this post by Malcolm Wallace
On 2006-01-12, Malcolm Wallace <[hidden email]> wrote:
> However, it also needs a disclaimer of warranty,

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

I'd prefer to find a prewritten license that covers this, of course.

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Public Domain

Ashley Yakeley
Aaron Denney wrote:
> On 2006-01-12, Malcolm Wallace <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>However, it also needs a disclaimer of warranty,
>
>
> Agreed, agreed, agreed.
>
> I'd prefer to find a prewritten license that covers this, of course.

If we can't find one, we might lift sections 5 & 6 from the Creative
Commons "by" license.
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode>

So we end up cobbling together our own license.

Also, Lawrence Lessig (who presumably wrote the CC public domain
dedication) thinks dedicating something to the public domain is hard,
even just for the United States.
<http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml>
CC public domain dedication:
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>

--
Ashley Yakeley

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

haskell.org Simple Permissive License

Ashley Yakeley
I'm sorry this is dragging on so long. It seems public domain is hard,
both in the U.S. and in certain European jurisdictions. And people want
a disclaimer.

I did come across the MIT license, which may be close.
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php>
Here is my non-expert attempt to adapt it, removing the condition, and
changing "Software" to "Work":

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
this work (the "Work"), to deal in the Work without restriction,
including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to
permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so.

"THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE WORK."

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Simple Permissive License

Cale Gibbard
On 12/01/06, Ashley Yakeley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm sorry this is dragging on so long. It seems public domain is hard,
> both in the U.S. and in certain European jurisdictions. And people want
> a disclaimer.
>
> I did come across the MIT license, which may be close.
> <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php>
> Here is my non-expert attempt to adapt it, removing the condition, and
> changing "Software" to "Work":
>
> "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> this work (the "Work"), to deal in the Work without restriction,
> including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
> publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to
> permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so.
>
> "THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
> OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
> ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER
> DEALINGS IN THE WORK."

That sounds good. I'd vote to make it the default license. I think
that allowing things to be sparingly attributed otherwise is a good
idea. Most of the time it wouldn't matter, but there may be content
which people want to make available on the site under different
licenses, and I don't see any reason to prevent them from doing so, so
long as which license things are under remains perfectly clear.

 - Cale
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

State Monad

Bruno Oliveira-5
In reply to this post by Ashley Yakeley
Hello,

Can somebody point me out the exact CVS location of the State Monad implementation
that ships with GHC? I am a bit lost in the CVS directory structure ...

Related to this, I saw the following thread:

http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell@.../msg17702.html

Which seems to hint that there are 2 alternative implementations for the State Monad:
one lazy version and one more strict version. Is this correct?

What I am really trying to find out is if the version that ships with GHC is the strict
version. At least I am inclined to think that, since a program that I expected to
terminate is not terminating ...

Finally, if there are indeed two versions, can somebody write (or point me out) the two
different implementations.

Thanks,

Bruno


_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State Monad

Christian Maeder
Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> Can somebody point me out the exact CVS location of the State Monad implementation
> that ships with GHC? I am a bit lost in the CVS directory structure ...

fptools/libraries/mtl/Control/Monad/State.hs

Christian
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: State Monad

Malcolm Wallace
Christian Maeder <[hidden email]> writes:

> Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> > Can somebody point me out the exact CVS location of the State Monad
> > implementation that ships with GHC? I am a bit lost in the CVS directory
> > structure ...
>
> fptools/libraries/mtl/Control/Monad/State.hs

Or rather

  fptools/libraries/base/Control/Monad/ST.hs
  fptools/libraries/base/Control/Monad/ST/Strict.hs
  fptools/libraries/base/Control/Monad/ST/Lazy.hs

Regards,
    Malcolm
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haskell.org Simple Permissive License

Ashley Yakeley
In reply to this post by Ashley Yakeley
This is done now, with a mandatory simple permissive license.

--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
12345