Licensing of examples
In  you added an example with a copyright and license statement. All Rosetta Code content must be released under GFDL (as stated in the notice on every edit page), though it can of course also have other licenses. So a copyright and license notice is inappropriate for RC examples; it is either unnecessary (if the text is GFDLed) or indicates that the text should not be in RC (if the text is not GFDLed). —Kevin Reid 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree on this point. If you want to add an alternate license (such as BSD) to your contributions, the best place to make note of that is on your User Page. See Rosetta Code:Copyrights. --Michael Mol 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I should probably add that it's inappropriate for an entire example to be marked under a different license. Part of the reason is that as people edit it and make changes, the copyright notice of the particular license either becomes vague and incorrect (several people have subsequently made changes, those changes are now part of that example, and those changes are themselves licensed under the site-wide licensing policy), or they seek to override the license of changes made to that example. The latter behavior is incompatible with RCo's use of the GFDL; Users are told as they make submissions that their contributions are considered to be released under the GFDL.
Copied from the area immediately below this edit box (as I type this):
- Please note that all contributions to Rosetta Code are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (see Rosetta Code:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
- You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Jon, what needs to be done depends on your intent. If you intend to have your contributions dual-licensed under the sitewide license as well as your own preferred licenses, then all that needs to be done is for you to remove the copyright notice from the top of the example. If you don't want the example dual-licensed between your own preferred license (the BSD license, in this case) and the sitewide license, then it needs to be removed. (Either by you, or by someone else. Figure on having until Jan 30th (a week from now) to take care of it, or we'll have to remove it.) --Michael Mol 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll just remove the licenses. Sorry for that ! Jon
- Heh. Sorry to get formal like that, it's just that copyright is something I have to be careful about. legally, Rosetta Code resolves to me as an individual, so I have to be a little paranoid and aggressive at times. --Michael Mol 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry, no problems :)--Jonenst 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)