Unity Wiki is back up!

The Unity wiki is now back up and running!

You can find it here http://wiki.unity3d.com

Enjoy!

 

Woot!!! ( yeah i know this adds nothing to the thread, but, but... woooooot!!!!!)

zipper

 

Good job

I really wish i could catch those morons, and give them some lessons ...

 

Whoa...different domain name. (Or maybe that should be , since all those links I've posted in the past will not work anymore...alas.)

--Eric

 

Probably not which is a pain. The link on the community home page isn't going to right place either but I've alerted people about that.

 

Great to hear it's back online and I like it that this is now totally official ;-) are you planning to integrate the Wiki into UDN? That would be awesome ;-)

Regarding the links (which I feel is a major issue):

What about setting the original Wiki to read only and adding a permanent redirect to the correct page of the new wiki on each page of the old Wiki. That shouldn't be too hard: simply take the current URL and replace "www.unifycommunity.com/wiki/" with "wiki.unity3d.com/". Not sure about PHP or that specific Wiki software but in ASP.NET that should be just one line of code in the right template.

Another thing you might consider is doing that same replacement in the content tables of forums, answers and maybe even feedback. That way, all links from UT Web apps would directly work, and this also shouldn't be too hard to do (sitting at lunch, so I don't have the SQL syntax at hand ATM ;-) ). Oh wait: This should do:

http://www.sqlteam.com/article/using-replace-in-an-update-statement

The permanent redirects are still important because I believe there's also quite a few blog postings out there linking into the Wiki.

 

Is it just me or is the formatting of the scripts now mixed up?

 

Mixed up how? I'm not mega familiar so bare with

 

The plan is to redirect all unifycommunity.com/wiki traffic to the new URL, so eventually all the wiki links posted will work. We just don't know exactly when, but not too long. The web guys are on it though!

 

Oops, yeah...the one page I quickly checked earlier (this one) seemed to be OK (except for syntax highlighting), but most of the others seem to have non-formatted code.

--Eric

 

Yup that's an issue and the web team are on it.

 

Good to know. Thanks

I thought more about this stuff here, which i saw more than once. The C# version is out of any formatting. And the Javascript version has formatting, but shows some odd boxes around the codeparts.

http://wiki.unity3d.com/index.php/Wander

 

Thanks, I'm sure the web team will look out for all the code formatting, at least I hope so XD I'll keep an eye on the problem and update.

 

Maybe we should have additional script sections for iOS and Android (or just mobile)? I'm thinking of posting an iAd script (once the formatting issues are resolved) but I'm not sure where it should go.

 

By the way, the Creative Commons license is a nice addition!

 

I think the formatting issue is resolved now, if anyone finds any problems though let me know!

 

It`s a limitation. What was totally free before requires to have a very close look at the license now that the code snippet is under. And even the most free CC license requires some action. I don`t really like that.

Just curious, since the code snippets were created by other community members and not Unity, have you asked them if you are allowed to put their work under the CC license?

 

Surely if you post a code snippet or a piece of knowledge on a wiki, you assume that people will use or adapt it. The CC protects the contributors in that no one can make money off their work.

 

Sure. It delivers some protection for the authors. But that`s the problem already. Some stuff at the wiki is really basic. Will you sue now everybody with the CC license from the wiki when he has found an equal solution?

We have reached the problematic area of software patents here. Before the CC licenses at the Wiki i didn`t have to worry to use let`s say some crossfade between two cameras. A few lines of code. And not this much space to make it different from the solution that can be found in the wiki. Now i have to check for every line of code in the Wiki if my solution that i have found for my problem isn`t already listed somewhere. Means if i need to give somebody credits for it. Most of the times something that is this common that it should be completely free at all. And not limited by any license.

I don`t exactly know how it`s handled elsewhere. But in germany something needs to have what we call creation depth, before the content can be seen as something that is under a copyrigt. And most of the Wiki scripts simply miss this goal. You can`t copyright the alphabet.

I would really love when the Wiki would be CC license free as before. I´m really unhappy with it. I see this step to put the content of the Wiki under CC as highly problematic.

 

You won't need to check every single line of code you've ever written. As you mentioned basic functions will be the same or similar, I think if you end up heavily using the wiki then you will need to add the wiki in the credits just like you would any 3D package or even Unity itself when making a commercial game.

I'll look into the possibilities of posting a clearer explanation on the wiki.

 

Hm, the CC clearly says that you need to name every author where you use the work from, one by one. It`s not enough to name just the Wiki. And yes, i have to check. When there`s a license then i need to follow it. Else i do something illegal. And it doesn`t help me when i didn`t know about an existing Wiki script.

That`s the main problem with such licenses. You trap yourself too easily.

 

I'm looking into it

 

As someone who contributed quite a few scripts, I don't think it should use a Creative Commons license. When you use a wiki like that, you should expect it's essentially public domain.

--Eric

 

IANAL, but:

I would suggest CC0 for code/file content unless otherwise stated (that part is important!). That better reflects how the wiki has been used historically in the past. If an author wants to require attribution or something else, they can put their own license for their content (The wiki terms may need to be changed so that people posting can only optionally apply their own license to code snippets and uploaded files, not general wiki text). Also, it's totally possible to have wiki text itself under an attribution license, separate from any code blocks.

 

I don't know if the CC license is the best choice, but it's better to have a license explicitly listed than just leave it open to interpretation. The CC share-alike license is the one used by wikipedia, and doesn't say you can't use it commercially. Perhaps using the CC license for text and public domain for code is the way to go. For software I generally like to see something like the MIT license but I don't know how well that works with wikis where anyone can edit a contribution. Offhand, I don't know of a wiki that actually has a good license for code, e.g. the LSL wiki just says you contribute code with the understanding that other people can modify and use it for non-profit purposes.

 

Also, let's be clear - the CC share-alike license doesn't say you need to list every single author. It says you must attribute the work as specified by the author or licensor (in this case, it would be Unity).

You are free:
to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.
With the understanding that:
Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
your fair dealing or fair use rights;
the author's moral rights; and
rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do that is with a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

We have not changed the license on the wiki in the move.

I thought this was set to public domain (and fully agree that it should be), but apparently it is not.

I'll talk to Neil about it.

 

Any news on the license issue?

 

The wiki's licensing has always been very vague. This is the closest thing we have to a statement on licensing, Creative Commons badge aside. I think that it'd be best to make the whole thing public domain and make it clear on the front page that this effectively converts all existing content to also be public domain.

That's all fine except where the contributors of existing content decide that their stuff shouldn't be public domain. For example, if they want attribution. You occasionally see contributors putting copyright messages (!) on their wiki contributions, too.

In my opinion, those users should review their contributions and decide whether they want to make them public domain or remove them entirely.

 

Yes, Public domain is the most recommended licensing here.

 

The creative commons explanation on that site is super vague

 

The creative commons license itself not though.

 

I know but for anyone not willing to go digging before they contribute, it can be troublesome.

 

Indeed. That`s why the Wiki stuff should be under Public Domain.

 

Ohh very good news!

 

hi,
Good news for us

 

awesome ty share