Please upgrade here. These earlier versions are no longer being updated and have security issues.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Vanilla documentations license

yu_tangyu_tang New
edited February 2011 in Vanilla 2.0 - 2.8
Which license apply to Vanilla documentations in here?
If I translate them to other language, shouldn't it be released public or would it be possible under some license?

I am considering using a some social translation service - not a machine, by volunteer based. The service needs docs license to post it.
I know, Vanilla itself is under GPL2 but docs?

Thanks in advance.


  • LincLinc Detroit Admin
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    What is a standard? Creative Commons?
  • GNU Free Documentation License or Creative Commons, IMO.
    ... Or if i18n and versioning features are planned for Vanilla Pages, we users may be of some help.
  • LincLinc Detroit Admin
    I suggest an appropriate CC license simply for clarity.
  • emziemzi
    edited August 2012

    @Mark, @Tim, @Lincoln

    At last, What's the contents license? CC (cc by, cc by-sa, ...)? GNU FDL? or something else?

    I think GFDL for articles and also GPL for their codes are proper choices! :)

  • LincLinc Detroit Admin

    It's not currently officially licensed. I'm sure it's something we'll do, but this isn't a prime moment to be asking and expect action - bit hectic this week.

  • emziemzi
    edited August 2012


    Just for enlarging the matter: What about "" license? Public domain?
    Indeed, the owner of a comment is its sender! Unless granting the right to the site via accepting the terms of service. I couldn't find anything about this, here?!

  • Public content remains public, as in you cannot, claim it is private if you released it deliberately. Limiting the liability over the publisher regarding privacy.

    When a site publishes you content you are publishing by proxy. That means that the site is the publisher. You cannot contravene their freedoms, which mean they have a right to edit, and remove content as they wish. If you don't like it you are free to choose another publisher.

    I think people forget where they are when they can post, they tend to think they have right over the publisher. Freedom of speech exist sin dominions, legally. A site is not a state.

    Regarding the ownership of the content, that does depend a lot on the terms of service. Some forums wish to transfer ownership, merely becuase they believe this puts them in a stronger position liability wise. I don't think this is really the case. However it needs to be made clear once in the public domain it can't be 'undone' easily, as in one site cannot control distribution over the web, search engines, etc.

    Also I happen to think that people get a bit licence obsessed. if it is not proprietary, the copy left side can be equally obsessive. Also I think people get too fixated on one particular brand of licence like GPL. I'd always advise to leave idealism at the door, instead think what is the best licence for the scenario, and going into the future.

    "Syphon" or one way licences claim to be about choice, but they put restrictions on just like proprietary licences do. These limit can hamper progress, and suffocate financial support for OS.

    Don't get me wrong I'm still glad these licence schemes exist, because they stop complacency, however think long and hard before applying a very restrictive licence such as AGPL. You might in a scenario where it is suitable, and even beneficial in the long run. But actually in many cases, restricting your potential clientèle could mean that they can't prosper, meaning that the project will die, because they are unable to support it.

    I also think when we get over the recent licence fad, people will be thinking more bespoke.

    grep is your friend.

Sign In or Register to comment.