No indication of license for content on the Rust wiki

[asb]

I had a look, but couldn't see any indication for the intended license of content on the Rust wiki. This isn't necessarily a major issue, but it's not inconceivable people could contribute content that would be useful to pull in to official Rust documentation.

[toddaaro]

A license for this would be great to have. @graydon can you take a look at this?

[thestinger]

We should probably just use the same dual licensing as Rust itself, to allow freely copying to and from the wiki.

[asb]

Bumping this issue (I suppose @brson is best placed to look in to it now?) because it's been open for a long time, and it's one of these cases where it just gets harder and harder to fix as time goes on, as more contributions are made to the wiki with an uncertain licensing situation.

[brson]

This problem also exists with our in-tree documentation. It's something we need to address for sure. I'm not entirely sure what do do for the wiki - can we just put a disclaimer on the front page saying the license? Do we need a license on every page? I probably need to consult the lawyers... grumble.

[brson]

I've belatedly pinged the lawyers about this issue.

[brson]

After consulting with people who understand these matters, this is what I intend to do:

• All Rust documentation will also be MIT/ASL2 licensed.
• Add the license as a footer to existing in-tree documentation, under the argument that it is already licensed according to the same terms as the rest of the repo.
• Gather new statements from wiki contributors asserting that they contrtibuted under the MIT/ASL2, as we did when we relicensed Rust.
• Put the license as footers on all pages of the wiki.

[cartazio]

i consent to have any comments i make be MIT licensed.

[steveklabnik]

This can be closed since #12094 has been merged, and we're not really putting anything but meeting notes on the wiki anymore.

[brson]

I prefer to keep this open as long as there is incorrectly-licensed content on the wiki. We're pretty anal about licenses...

[brson]

It seems unlikely that I'm ever going to get around to fixing this. It's just not that important. The most important thing remaining is policy documentation and that rightly belongs somewhere not world-editable.

[steveklabnik]

Does this mean we can just remove the wiki then?