In the current Haskell Wiki (haskell.org/haskellwiki) I found references to articles of the old Hawiki (haskell.org/hawiki), like OnceAndOnlyOnce and SeparationOfConcerns. Are the files still available somewhere?
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 14:57 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
In the current Haskell Wiki (haskell.org/haskellwiki) I found references to articles of the old Hawiki (haskell.org/hawiki), like OnceAndOnlyOnce and SeparationOfConcerns. Are the files still available somewhere?
Ditto for links to HaskellDB. HaskellDB looks nice, but the online documentation is scattered with broken links in all directions. In order of appearance on Google: http://haskelldb.sourceforge.net/ - some good info, but needs maintenance. E.g. broken link to old wiki http://www.haskell.org/haskellDB/ - downloads page claims last update in 1999(!) http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Libraries_and_tools/Database_interfaces/Haske... - more a catalog of historic rather than practical interest I think it's fair to say the situation doesn't actually make it easy to get started with one of the most central Haskell DB interfaces. -k
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 14:57 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
In the current Haskell Wiki (haskell.org/haskellwiki) I found references to articles of the old Hawiki (haskell.org/hawiki), like OnceAndOnlyOnce and SeparationOfConcerns. Are the files still available somewhere?
Bring back HaWiki! I thought I'd start with the war cry, and obviously that is not directed to you Henning. HaWiki was taken down for the not unreasonable reason that, since it is no longer being updated, there is a decent chunk of out-dated and thus misleading information on it. Unfortunately there is a ridiculously large amount extremely good information on it that never got ported and frankly never is going to be ported (for good and bad reasons). Clearly making HaWiki live again would be a bad idea; haskellwiki is being used now for a reason. However, having it up in "stasis" as it was with some prominent indication on each page that it is out of date/no longer updated/obsolete or whichever term suits you fancy should effectively solve the problem. It should be possible and probably even desirable to "distill" the pages into static HTML documents so that MoinMoin would not be needed, if that is an issue. The current Tying_the_knot page is a pale comparison to the old one, and the entire CommonHaskellIdioms hierarchy was never migrated, an impressive resource.
Hi
Bring back HaWiki!
I couldn't agree more! We built up an incredible array of articles, by fantastic authors with stunning content - which we then deleted... I learnt much from the old wiki, and it would be a shame if others didn't get that opportunity. Of course it should be static only, big warnings of out of date content etc. - but it should be available for years to come. Thanks Neil
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 14:57 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
In the current Haskell Wiki (haskell.org/haskellwiki) I found references to articles of the old Hawiki (haskell.org/hawiki), like OnceAndOnlyOnce and SeparationOfConcerns. Are the files still available somewhere?
HaWiki was taken down for the not unreasonable reason that, since it is no longer being updated, there is a decent chunk of out-dated and thus misleading information on it. Unfortunately there is a ridiculously large amount extremely good information on it that never got ported and frankly never is going to be ported (for good and bad reasons).
... and there was unfortunately no support in porting the stuff. I guess some simple program (perl -p -e 's/{{{/<hask>/g' :-) could have simplified a lot. Its however more difficult for me to do this via the web interface, than for the people who have access to the bare files.
Clearly making HaWiki live again would be a bad idea; haskellwiki is being used now for a reason. However, having it up in "stasis" as it was with some prominent indication on each page that it is out of date/no longer updated/obsolete or whichever term suits you fancy should effectively solve the problem. It should be possible and probably even desirable to "distill" the pages into static HTML documents so that MoinMoin would not be needed, if that is an issue.
Since it is easier to port Wiki code than HTML code, I propose copying all hawiki pages as they are to haskellwiki in a directory like DEPRECATED.
From there people can go on moving pages into the space of current pages. This would also allow to track where pages came from Hawiki.
The current Tying_the_knot page is a pale comparison to the old one, and the entire CommonHaskellIdioms hierarchy was never migrated, an impressive resource.
Seconded.
lemming:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 14:57 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
In the current Haskell Wiki (haskell.org/haskellwiki) I found references to articles of the old Hawiki (haskell.org/hawiki), like OnceAndOnlyOnce and SeparationOfConcerns. Are the files still available somewhere?
HaWiki was taken down for the not unreasonable reason that, since it is no longer being updated, there is a decent chunk of out-dated and thus misleading information on it. Unfortunately there is a ridiculously large amount extremely good information on it that never got ported and frankly never is going to be ported (for good and bad reasons).
... and there was unfortunately no support in porting the stuff. I guess some simple program (perl -p -e 's/{{{/<hask>/g' :-) could have simplified a lot. Its however more difficult for me to do this via the web interface, than for the people who have access to the bare files.
The problem was the licensing. Only pages whose authors were known, and who gave permission to license the work freely, were ported. And only some of those pages actually got moved.
Clearly making HaWiki live again would be a bad idea; haskellwiki is being used now for a reason. However, having it up in "stasis" as it was with some prominent indication on each page that it is out of date/no longer updated/obsolete or whichever term suits you fancy should effectively solve the problem. It should be possible and probably even desirable to "distill" the pages into static HTML documents so that MoinMoin would not be needed, if that is an issue.
Since it is easier to port Wiki code than HTML code, I propose copying all hawiki pages as they are to haskellwiki in a directory like DEPRECATED.
From there people can go on moving pages into the space of current pages. This would also allow to track where pages came from Hawiki.
We can't do that, due to the licensing issues. Details here: http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/HaWiki_migration -- Don
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
lemming:
... and there was unfortunately no support in porting the stuff. I guess some simple program (perl -p -e 's/{{{/<hask>/g' :-) could have simplified a lot. Its however more difficult for me to do this via the web interface, than for the people who have access to the bare files.
The problem was the licensing. Only pages whose authors were known, and who gave permission to license the work freely, were ported. And only some of those pages actually got moved.
I'm not a lawyer, but I like to say, that the new HaskellWiki is just a new way to present the old content. What have the authors (implicitly) agreed on, when they entered content into Hawiki? What exactly is "Hawiki". If you had reconfigured Hawiki to be presented in different colors, with different font, different frame, different design - at which point would Hawiki have been no longer Hawiki, thus requiring new permission from authors? Now, since Moin-Moin-Hawiki is gone, can HaskellWiki be considered as a new design of Hawiki, a different engine presenting the same old content?
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 21:56 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
lemming:
... and there was unfortunately no support in porting the stuff. I guess some simple program (perl -p -e 's/{{{/<hask>/g' :-) could have simplified a lot. Its however more difficult for me to do this via the web interface, than for the people who have access to the bare files.
The problem was the licensing. Only pages whose authors were known, and who gave permission to license the work freely, were ported. And only some of those pages actually got moved.
I'm not a lawyer, but I like to say, that the new HaskellWiki is just a new way to present the old content. What have the authors (implicitly) agreed on, when they entered content into Hawiki? What exactly is "Hawiki". If you had reconfigured Hawiki to be presented in different colors, with different font, different frame, different design - at which point would Hawiki have been no longer Hawiki, thus requiring new permission from authors? Now, since Moin-Moin-Hawiki is gone, can HaskellWiki be considered as a new design of Hawiki, a different engine presenting the same old content?
The issue is that we don't know what the "license" is for the -content- of HaWiki. HaskellWiki explicitly states that all the content in it has a specific license. We can't take the old content and put it on HaskellWiki because that would imply that it is licensed under HaskellWiki's license which it is not.
Hi There are two entirely separate issues in this thread - let's not confuse them. 1) The old HaWiki content is good and unavailable. I want it made available, in whatever form is appropriate. Please :-) 2) Licensing - the old content cannot be dumped onto the new wiki. My personal view is "who cares". There are numerous license violations within the Haskell community (I can think of 4 off the top of my head), but in general everyone is working for the same purpose, and its just pesky laws getting in the way - not violating peoples intent. I realise that this will be a minority opinion, and that its probably a bad idea to follow my opinion on this. Thanks Neil
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 08:29, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
There are two entirely separate issues in this thread - let's not confuse them.
1) The old HaWiki content is good and unavailable. I want it made available, in whatever form is appropriate. Please :-)
2) Licensing - the old content cannot be dumped onto the new wiki. My personal view is "who cares". There are numerous license violations within the Haskell community (I can think of 4 off the top of my head), but in general everyone is working for the same purpose, and its just pesky laws getting in the way - not violating peoples intent. I realise that this will be a minority opinion, and that its probably a bad idea to follow my opinion on this.
HaskellWiki states "Recent content is available under a simple permissive license." That implies to me that there may be old content that isn't under a simple permissive licence, so users of the wiki should have an eye out for licencing issues. Could the hawiki content not be slapped in at .../haskellwiki/OldContent/... read-only with big, red, flashing, 'licence unknown, get contributor consents, etc, etc' warning? At least it can then be migrated easily if the rights-holder agrees, or be referenced by original works on haskellwiki. That seems a satisfactory attempt to honour the letter/intent of the law/contributor. If someone complains the offending content can be removed. Daniel
On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 09:38 +1200, Daniel McAllansmith wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 08:29, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
There are two entirely separate issues in this thread - let's not confuse them.
1) The old HaWiki content is good and unavailable. I want it made available, in whatever form is appropriate. Please :-)
2) Licensing - the old content cannot be dumped onto the new wiki. My personal view is "who cares". There are numerous license violations within the Haskell community (I can think of 4 off the top of my head), but in general everyone is working for the same purpose, and its just pesky laws getting in the way - not violating peoples intent. I realise that this will be a minority opinion, and that its probably a bad idea to follow my opinion on this.
HaskellWiki states "Recent content is available under a simple permissive license." That implies to me that there may be old content that isn't under a simple permissive licence, so users of the wiki should have an eye out for licencing issues.
Yes, but the thing is, essentially all content on haskellwiki is "recent" with respect to that license. All content on haskellwiki is under the simple permissive license so users -don't- have to have an eye out.
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Neil Mitchell wrote:
2) Licensing - the old content cannot be dumped onto the new wiki. My personal view is "who cares".
I like the German phrase "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter." ("no complaint, no redress" ? http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=98507&idForum=1&lp=ende&lang=de)
There are numerous license violations within the Haskell community (I can think of 4 off the top of my head), but in general everyone is working for the same purpose, and its just pesky laws getting in the way - not violating peoples intent. I realise that this will be a minority opinion,
I join this minority. Lawyers, please turn a deaf ear.
G'day all.
Quoting Henning Thielemann
I join this minority. Lawyers, please turn a deaf ear.
I dissent in part. Speaking for myself (I wrote quite a bit of stuff for hawiki, including some of TyingTheKnot), I don't want anyone violating my copyrights. However, I /did/ grant a blanket licence for anything that I wrote on hawiki to be relicensed under the haskellwiki licence, because I didn't have the time to do it myself. But not all of it was ported before hawiki disappeared, and I didn't keep a copy. I propose: 1. Bring back hawiki in a read-only form. 2. Copy over every sufficiently useful part of every page, where the author has granted the licence. 3. Identify who the major contributors for the rest are. Write stubs, proactively ask for licences, and, if necessary, rewrite the critical bits. I still don't have a huge amount of time, but even I committed to doing only one page a week, if enough people did the same, it'd be done in a very short time. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Derek Elkins wrote:
The issue is that we don't know what the "license" is for the -content- of HaWiki. HaskellWiki explicitly states that all the content in it has a specific license. We can't take the old content and put it on HaskellWiki because that would imply that it is licensed under HaskellWiki's license which it is not.
We could put all Hawiki pages into a HaskellWiki directory named DEPRECATED, and declare all articles in this directory to be excluded from the license that holds for the rest of the HaskellWiki. Would this be a solution?
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 23:50 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Derek Elkins wrote:
The issue is that we don't know what the "license" is for the -content- of HaWiki. HaskellWiki explicitly states that all the content in it has a specific license. We can't take the old content and put it on HaskellWiki because that would imply that it is licensed under HaskellWiki's license which it is not.
We could put all Hawiki pages into a HaskellWiki directory named DEPRECATED, and declare all articles in this directory to be excluded from the license that holds for the rest of the HaskellWiki. Would this be a solution?
You'd have to annotate each page (preferably, easy to automate), but -ultimately- this is not the issue. I don't care where HaWiki is, I just want it available. There is no licensing issue with just bringing it back up.
participants (7)
-
ajb＠spamcop.net -
Daniel McAllansmith -
Derek Elkins -
dons＠cse.unsw.edu.au -
Henning Thielemann -
Ketil Malde -
Neil Mitchell