I've done several Forum searches & searches of help pages within Wikidot & I can't figure out how to change what license my wiki is being published using. From what I've been able to find the link I'm intended to follow simply isn't displaying in the side navigation bar. I'm sure I'm just making an obvious mistake, but a little guidance would be appreciated.
http://handbook.wikidot.com/en:what-is-a-license does not help ?
( the setup in the site manager..)
Service is my success. My webtips:www.blender.org (Open source), Wikidot-Handbook.
Sie können fragen und mitwirken in der deutschsprachigen » User-Gemeinschaft für WikidotNutzer oder
im deutschen » Wikidot Handbuch ?
changing the License is done via the site manger. look for license. just under appearance.
(or) do you mean you click on this link and nothing happens?
if yes, do any of the links in the list work?
The only items in the nav bar are:
You should have License under Appearance…
EDIT: I think that there has been a recent change in this. I think that free sites cannot change the license. I am sure I read it somewhere at one of numerous Wikidot Community sites, but I am unable to find it right now. But it must be this, since I see now that my private free site does not have the option License…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
I know. I don't.
This is the second Wikidot wiki I've made. The other one I was able to change the License for without problem. I've signed in & out a few times but the link isn't there.
Please, see my previous post, I changed it. Free sites cannot change the license.
The change is recent, so if you could change in the previous site, you must have created it before December…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
Here it is. It was published on Dec. 15th:
We're going to be making two changes. First of all, all new free sites will be licensed under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. Existing alternative licenses will remain. Second, Pro site owners will have the option of blocking cloning, and cross-site includes, of their content.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
I guess I will have to delete my site & find another place to put my wiki.
What were you planning to put on your wiki, and what licence did you want to use?
If the content will help the community, I'll gladly be master admin for you if it'll help.
~ Leiger - Wikidot Community Admin - Volunteer
Wikidot: Official Documentation | Wikidot Discord server | NEW: Wikiroo, backup tool (in development)
I am sure your intentions are the best possible and that you only want to help, lieger, but I think that this cannot be solution. You (or some other guy with 1000 sites) can find yourself in a situation of having a dozen (or more) of sites that you don't have any interest in, but you have to control, because you are MA after all. On the other hand, I really wouldn't want to make a site, put all my effort in it, and leave it to the mercy to a person I don't even know. And I am sure that many others think the same.
People should be free to determine the license of their sites, even if they are free. There are dozens of Creative Commons licences, and it is completely unclear why only one of them is ok for Wikidot team.
I think that this change was very hasty and unnecessary, except it satisfied someones ego. The bad thing is that in this way, Wikidot will lose many possible users… But hey, if Wikidot team doesn't mind… :D
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
I think that this change was very hasty and unnecessary, except it satisfied someones ego. The bad thing is that in this way, Wikidot will lose many possible users… But hey, if Wikidot team doesn't mind… :D
Brunhilda, note that we opened this discussion in October of last year. You were free to voice your opinion then. You are free to do so today, of course, but perhaps before turning this into a personal attack, consider that there might be good reasons for this.
The point you make about other CC licenses is a good one, again, it's a point you could have raised earlier when we discussed copyrights and licenses, and it's a point you can make without ad hominem snipes, indeed that's a sure way to get your suggestion ignored.
Pieter, I read your blog, and the whole blog was screaming that the decision was done because you were pissed off about that Stop music theft site, and that the decision was made only by you, and only because of that, since you despise the sintagm "intellectual property". Read again your blog, and you will see. Isn't that then a "decision made only to satisfy someone's ego"?
On the other hand, I did not feel like discussing anything there, since every time I open my mouth there and it is not something that you like, I get a good portion of insults from your side. And providing that others where completely giving a damn about it, and that they were only interested in the feature you published together with that decision (preventing the cross-site including for Pro account), I thought that any kind of my intervention about it, would be in vain, and yes, I wanted to spare me a couple of insults.
And also, I thought that nobody cared about taking away a possibility to choose the licence (just as nobody cared to pay twice Polish vat), so, as I was among those who could keep their own licence, then, I thought, why bother? I didn't want to happen to me again what happened when I noticed irregularities in euro price, but then realized that EU citizens don't care paying the Polish VAT twice, and in the end, I was the one who looked like an ogre. Therefore, that is why I did not say anything when you blogged your decision. But when I saw some people here would even abandon Wikidot because of it, I had to say something. I am sorry if it hurt your feelings, but this is what I think, since you were the one who gave the material for such opinion. It was not Phil, nor Helmuti, nor Shane, nor anyone else who made this decision, it was you and only you.
OK, If I may ask:What's wrong with Creative Commons licences? Why don't you let people to chose one of them? I mean if Wikipedia, the mother of all wikis, can use all Creative Commons licences, why the hell Wikidot can't?
If you are so pissed off about that Stop the music theft site (and I understand, I really do), then you should ban him, and not prevent hundreds of others of something that has nothing to do with your anger. In this way, you lost at least three or four good members (and sites that they might make), for a sake of one that does not even obey the simplest rules of Wikidot (like putting the links to pirate contents site, if I am not mistaken….)
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
OK, If I may ask:What's wrong with Creative Commons licences? Why don't you let people to chose one of them? I mean if Wikipedia, the mother of all wikis, can use all Creative Commons licences, why the hell Wikidot can't?
The licence needs to allow for anyone randomly coming in and cloning your site, then changing it however they'd like. Does every Creative Commons license allow for this?
I agree that any creative commons licence that seems to comply with the cloning feature, should be given to free sites. That would then agree with pieter's reason for disabling the choice in the first place, and would also give free sites more options than they currently have.
I do not believe that the "Stop Piracy Theft" website has anything to do with this issue. It is related, but only barely, and certainly not enough to draw conclusions from.
Let's keep this page clean. I would ask that we discuss the possibility of changing this functionality and the reasons for doing so, and to avoid discussing accusations regarding why the functionality exists.
Complain about the policy, don't complain about a person. That just makes it a personal attack and is guaranteed to turn nasty very quickly.
Now you know my thoughts on this… I'll probably avoid replying to this thread again.
~ Leiger - Wikidot Community Admin - Volunteer
Wikidot: Official Documentation | Wikidot Discord server | NEW: Wikiroo, backup tool (in development)
Pieter, I read your blog, and the whole blog was screaming that the decision was done because you were pissed off about that Stop music theft site, and that the decision was made only by you, and only because of that, since you despise the sintagm "intellecutal property". Read again your blog, and you will see. Isn't that then a decision made only to satisfy somenone's ego?
No, Brunhilda, you have your timelines confused here. That site was only launched at the end of November. I started the necessary discussion of copyrights and licenses in September and made the internal issue for changing the site license policy on 30 September, which we left open pending more discussion on the blog. Like I said, there was not much discussion at the time, only a handful of comments.
The only disussion that treats licences and I know of is your decision published in your blog. I don't know where that other September discussion took place, and if it took place in Admins site, may I remember you that I am not an admin any more.
If the story about licencing was different, I am sorry, but I didn't know. I follow Communty forum and your blog. I don't even know about many other sites that you opened and you might use for discussions. I really do not have time to do it. Maybe if you put everything in just only one site, but you already said that you prefer many sites, so… I simply cannot manage to follow all of them.
On the other hand… Wouldn't it be better not to make any decisions on the subject you see that there is not much discussion, and wait a little bit and start again, in some place which is more visited, like Community forum?
Whatever, now, what is done, is done, and we cannot do anything about it. If you want, think about including all Creative Commons licenses, since even the most restrictive one (the one I have) permits the plain use of the contents, and that is the most what someone would do if he includes the page from some other sit to his site.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
The licence needs to allow for anyone randomly coming in and cloning your site, then changing it however they'd like. Does every Creative Commons license allow for this?
Why would be allowed this? I really do not understand. Why Wikidot would allow such thing? I really doo not understand why Wikidot would condition the use of a free site with such unreasonable thing? I do not have anything against that someone takes my text and puts on his site: but I do have against that he changes it and does not sign me/my site as a source. What's wrong with it? And if it is possible to prevent cloning for Pro sites, then I guess it is not too hard to do it for free sites. I really do think that Wikodot will only lose possible clients with this politics, since it says from the very beginning: ok, here's the site for you, but in return, all that you put in it is not yours, but everyone`s.
I agree that any creative commons licence that seems to comply with the cloning feature, should be given to free sites. That would then agree with pieter's reason for disabling the choice in the first place, and would also give free sites more options than they currently have.
Heh, it is easy for you to talk like this, havng that barn star in your avatar icon… Has anyone ever asked any free user what they think about it? And the last and the most important question: What has Wikidot from this? I don't see any visible benefit for Wikidot, except losing possible members from the very start, who one day, when they get know better Wikidot features, can convert in pro users.
I do not believe that the "Stop Piracy Theft" website has anything to do with this issue. It is related, but only barely, and certainly not enough to draw conclusions from.
Maybe, but reading only Pieter's blog, this is the impression it emanates…
Let's keep this page clean. I would ask that we discuss the possibility of changing this functionality and the reasons for doing so, and to avoid discussing accusations regarding why the functionality exists.
Hm… I can promise you that my posts will remain in civilized tone as long as the other side keeps the same civilized tone towards my person. I cannot promise you more, and I think it is not fair to ask for more.
Complain about the policy, don't complain about a person. That just makes it a personal attack and is guaranteed to turn nasty very quickly.
I complained about the policy, AND I gave the reason I think that this policy exists. You cannot censorship my nor anyone's thoughts (or maybe you can, you already brought some censorship polcies I am not aware of????). And if you are so interested in keeping the peace, why didn't you react so quickly (or react at all) when a certain person was insulting me some time ago, just because I pointed out a grammar mistake?v Heh.. Shane… Anyway, thanks for putting your cards on the table. Now I know who I am dealing with.
Now you know my thoughts on this… I'll probably avoid replying to this thread again.
Good for you.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
On the other hand… Wouldn't it be better not to make any decisions on the subject you see that there is not much discussion, and wait a little bit and start again, in some place which is more visited, like Community forum?
Well, yes and no. I raised the subject twice to deafening silence and then solved the problem in a coherent way that seemed fair and clean. We've discussed the question of what separates free from paid sites many times, and the best answer (discussed with the community admins) is that free sites participate in the community while pro sites don't have that obligation. The license is part of that.
Whatever, now, what is done, is done, and we cannot do anything about it. If you want, think about including all Creative Commons licenses, since even the most restrictive one (the one I have) permits the plain use of the contents, and that is the most what someone would do if he includes the page from some other sit to his site.
:-) Wikidot continues to be driven by input from users, so I don't see why this case would be different. You have several ways to propose a change but the most effective is to create a weneed and then if needed, a more detailed analysis (with me or whomever) on the projects forum of precisely how the functionality would work.
Perhaps I will reply again.
Brunhilda: Heh, it is easy for you to talk like this, havng that barn star in your avatar icon…
I'm trying to help here. Don't shoot the messenger.
Me: Complain about the policy, don't complain about a person. That just makes it a personal attack and is guaranteed to turn nasty very quickly.
Brunhilda: I complained about the policy, AND I gave the reason I think that this policy exists. You cannot censorship my nor anyone's thoughts (or maybe you can, you already brought some censorship polcies I am not aware of????). And if you are so interested in keeping the peace, why didn't you react so quickly (or react at all) when a certain person was insulting me some time ago, just because I pointed out a grammar mistake?v Heh.. Shane… Anyway, thanks for putting your cards on the table. Now I know who I am dealing with.
I'm not trying to censor, just trying to prevent any more problems because when I see these types of raging arguments in my email, it makes my head spin… and I'd rather avoid spinning my head around any more than it already is ;-)
I think I remember what you're talking about with the 'grammar mistake' problem. If I didn't reply, it was probably because I was busy studying or some-such. Do you know when it took place? I was studying up until late November of last year I think, and took on a number of extra shifts at work during December/January(this month).
~ Leiger - Wikidot Community Admin - Volunteer
Wikidot: Official Documentation | Wikidot Discord server | NEW: Wikiroo, backup tool (in development)
Shane, just… Let it be, OK?
This time there was no turmoil, just a suggestion about licencing policies. I would appreciate if you read it, and gave your opinion on it. Please…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
Very interesting. We can't change the license, but the terms of service say the contrary - and I wouldn't create a wiki here if I could not change the license to non-commercial use!
Copyright policy
Each of the Wiki Sites can choose individual license for content ("Site License"). By posting Content to any of the Wiki Sites you agree to follow this Site License and make the Content your author available under this license. If your content does not follow the Site License it must be clearly stated.
You are not allowed to post, modify, distribute or reproduce any copyrighted material, trademarks or other proprietary information that belongs to others without having permission or appropriate license or its license is incompatible with the Site License.
Wikidot.com may terminate any User account and remove any unauthorized material from any the Wiki Site. We also reserve the right to remove any Wiki Site that repeatedly contains illegal materials.
If you believe your copyrighted work has been posted on any of the Wiki Sites without your permission and against the license under which it is distributed - please contact us via email: moc.todikiw|thgirypoc#moc.todikiw|thgirypoc.
They should change the terms of service, if they want to prohibit us from changing the license. But, those who have signed up until now still have this right!
Hasty and unnecessary change that wasn't even completed. The easiest thing is to click the button that limits the license to only one and write a deeply thoughtful blog accusing those who want their work to be protected. Harder part is to change all info that can be found in who-knows how many Community sites that only a very few still know the number of them. I wouldn't be surprised that someone else appears with some other, similar text, after this one is amended…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
They should change the terms of service, if they want to prohibit us from changing the license. But, those who have signed up until now still have this right!
Indeed, we should change the terms of service.
However this was not a hasty change.
The discussion of licenses was done over some time, in various forums last year and we got little feedback at the time, suggesting that people did not care much either way. Moving to a CC only license for free sites solved the lack of rules about copyability that the Clone function introduced. One can copy a CC-licensed site.
You can still trivially change the license for your site by adding the appropriate text to your nav:side: All contents of this site are copyright (c) the authors, all rights are reserved.
We will modify the ToS, thanks for pointing out the error, and we'll inform all users of this. You will see that the ToS explains how such changes apply to existing users.
If you already decided to give "prevent cloning" feature to Pro sites, then you should have given it to ALL Pro sites. Pro-Lite sites also pay some money for their sites…
I hope that I was nice enough so nobody will ignore me and this issue can be discussed… :D
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
Pro-lite sites already have this feature.
Thanks, sorry for repeating it. I just followed my thoughts while I was writing the posts…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
I read a little o n those different places the discussion took place. If I may say, I agree with those who said that source should be free for everyone, while the content should be protected in a way the owner of the site wishes. The reason for this is very logical:
1. Wikidot gives you a site for free, and everything you do with its syntax, design, CSS, source, etc, stays under the same licence as Wikidot sites: meaning, anyone can copy, change it and use it according to his own needs, because you did the same with Wikidot site.
2. But Wikidot site does not provide you with contents. The contents are yours, and only yours, and you should have the right to decide on the licence of it.
I will give you an example of my site: I have this site so beautiful and functional only because of Wikidot features and unselfish help other Wikidot members gave me. As a matter of fact, I don't have any moral right to keep my site source away from public view, because it is a result of a team work. Therefore, I am always glad to help the others when I see they have similar problems, and I have a ready made code for them. I always offer them my code to copy it or to use it in whatever way they want. Because I do not own that code, it is not my code, it belongs to all Wikidot users.
But the texts I and my two colleagues write are not the same. The texts I put are the result of my work and work of my colleagues. Therefore, I would like to have the acknowledgement for it. I don't mind if someone copies this text, but I do mind if it changes or signs it as if it were his. This is not fair and this is what would reject many other potential Wikidot members. They would go to some other place, where they can decide abut the licence, and they would rather put up with stupid ads than to let their work be copied and mutilated as anyone pleases.
Maybe you should start thinking in this direction: Wikidot source opened for everyone (or at least for Wikidot members), and the licence refers only to the contents of the site.
So, I don't mind that anyone clones my site because he liked the design, and then puts his own contents. But I do mind if someone clones my site and steals my texts without mentioning me, or starts chopping them according to his wishes…
A question: Is it possible to make a cloning feature that will clone only the spource, and not the content? Is it possible to put other licences to different categories? Because I don't mind (on the contrary, I am happy) if someone copies my infobox of sme template, but I would like to be able to protect my articles…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
:-) Wikidot continues to be driven by input from users, so I don't see why this case would be different. You have several ways to propose a change but the most effective is to create a weneed and then if needed, a more detailed analysis (with me or whomever) on the projects forum of precisely how the functionality would work.
Hm, somehow I don't like these weneed. Somehow I see that my proposal is lost among many others, and nobody discusses it. Also, just until a while ago those weneed didn't even had a Comments module…
Well, yes and no. I raised the subject twice to deafening silence and then solved the problem in a coherent way that seemed fair and clean. We've discussed the question of what separates free from paid sites many times, and the best answer (discussed with the community admins) is that free sites participate in the community while pro sites don't have that obligation. The license is part of that.
Then why Pro-Lite accounts don't have the possibility of preventing the cloning? They also pay some money for their sites…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
Then why Pro-Lite accounts don't have the possibility of preventing the cloning? They also pay some money for their sites…
If they don't, it's a bug and you can report that to the bug tracker at bugs.wikidot.com with some information of what site is affected. Thanks.
Before I report it, please tell me: does this feature can be seen only by MA? Since I am not MA of my site anymore, maybe this is why I don't see this feature. I remember that Stats feature could be seen only by MA. Others couldn't see it.
EDIT: My apologies. I found it. It is a pretty hidden, I must admit.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
But I read all the discussion on licences you had both on projects site and on your blog, and I see only a debate on if the source should be viewable or not, i.e. about Wikidot syntax, CSS, modules, etc. and not about the actual contents of a certain site. But in the end, the license you decided to put to all sites, does not separate Wikidot design and the contents of the site, and it should, since there was never a discussion on the license of the contents of free sites. I am sure that nobody has anything against to show and share their source, but many of us do have against to let anyone to copy the contents of our sites without any limits whatsoever.
Please, tell me where I can start the discussion, but don't tell me to put it in weeneed, because there is nothing here that has anything to do with some needed feature. Would that Project site will be ok?
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
The best way to discuss the licenses is to create a subthread of that original thread on the projects wiki, and list the actual CC licenses you would like us to support. You can assume that the decision to 'encourage' free sites to remain shareable is something we're doing for good reasons (a desire to encourage the community and make it clear to people what they can share and how).
As a matter of fact, I had something different in mind. I thought to make a separate licence for source and for content, since the content was not discussed. OK, I will go to projects wiki, ans open a new thread. I am not sure what do you mean by subthread…
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
OK. I do hope I posted in a right place.
http://projects.wikidot.com/thread:260
I am looking forward to hearing other opinions.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. - Paul McCartney
