Though I like many of the extensions [In WikiClones
], it's sad to see that folk haven't just added these to the original. I think it's because of the licensing; it would be very good for WikiWiki
if its transition to CopyLeft
could be expedited.
I'm very sorry if I seemed impatient - that was not my intention at all. I have only the greatest respect for folk working on wikiness and I appreciate that such delicate fish must be cooked gently.
But I'm not certain why you think CopyLeft
would threaten any wiki users' intellectual property rights. There are a great many copyleft products in use in commercial development shops - linux, apache and gcc to name three whose users number in the millions - and I don't believe any such use would be made if anyone felt their intellectual property was at risk.
IANAL, but I've never seen the opposite view before - can you refer to some real case where a GnuGeneralPublicLicense
, say, had such an effect?
There are copylefted versions of Wiki. Specifically, JosWiki
claims to be under the GnuGeneralPublicLicense
. Glancing at the source code, it looks to me to be a fresh implementation (and it has quite a few new features). May be it would be a better starting point for collaborative work because of these licensing issues.
I looked at JosWiki
, and while the functionality is very cool, the source code seems to be missing from the site. I am very interested in running a WikiWikiClone
, and I'd like to run it from GPL's source on general principles. Can anyone send me the source to JosWiki
, or point me to another GPL's Wiki? Ideally, one that runs over CVS (a phenomenally cool idea, BTW. I ran a web server over ClearCase
, a versioning filesystem, a few years ago, and loved it. But ClearCase
is absurdly expensive...)
Could any of you with experience of such things comment on different LicensingTerms