Don't really think this page is needed, but, if it's going to be in Codex, shouldn't it be in the Codex namespace? MichaelH (talk) 14:37, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

I don't know what you mean about namespace.

I feel very strongly that copyright of the Codex contents MUST be assigned, and right now it belongs to no-one. By that I mean there is no clear - crystal clear - list of who owns it. All I ever hear is "Codex is GPL blah blah blah" by people who have not put that much time into it. If Codex is GPL, and the Code is GPL then if one has a copyright holders list, then so does the other. I fail to see how that can be argued against. --Podz 14:46, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

Namespace

By namespace I mean the page should be [[Codex:Codex Copyright Holders]] just like Codex:Copyrights. MichaelH (talk) 14:52, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

Ahh...in that case I'd disagree. It just needs to be the same level as http://codex.wordpress.org/Copyright_Holders --Podz 14:55, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

Of course, I'd say that http://codex.wordpress.org/Copyright_Holders has no place in Codex--it shouldn't be here it should be in the product! MichaelH (talk) 15:00, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

I'm all for equality on this issue - let's delete both :) --Podz 15:13, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

Well you're on the list (Special:Listadmins); go for it! MichaelH (talk) 15:19, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

Heh .... and mess with the coders ? They'd win :)

I just want this copyright/licence/protection information sorted and in a clear, unambiguous way. I favour fast-tracking Skippy's suggestion and giving over the resonsibility to the EFF. --Podz 15:24, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)

Actuallt, I suggested that everyone transfer their copyright to WordPress, Inc. I used the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as an example. See this FAQ for more detail. Of course, I would also support transferring copyright to the FSF instead of WordPress, Inc. skippy 16:03, 18 Sep 2005 (GMT)