discuss: licence problems
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
29 Sep 2008 17:40:31 +0100
Message-Id: <20080929164029.GS1041@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 09:16:00AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
> >
> > > It would be nice if all wiki articles were GFDL. This makes it easy
> > > for users to understand what the rules are and anyone that wants to
> > > print them doesn't have to examine many different licenses.
> >
> > I suppose so, but that's _not_ the question before us.
>
> I thought the discussion was about what licenses to used for documents
> put into the wiki, and not for licenses accepted by LDP for non-wiki
> docs?
That was not the question Jean-Daniel was asking and I was answering,
when you jumped in and changed the subject. I was addressing, by his
more-or-less request, what licences LDP should be willing to accept
HOWTOs under.
> I agree, and that's why the manifesto allows a very large range of
> licenses. But the wiki situation is different. Anything put into the
> wiki must at least allow modification while it's in the wiki.
Obviously, the submitted work can, for that purpose, be under any
forkable free licence.
> > Again, that is _not_ the question before us. The question is whether
> > LDP will be willing to accept documents under the several other free
> > (forkable) documentation licences, other than GFDL 1.2 without invariant
> > sections.
>
> Do you mean the license for non-wiki or for wiki?
The same legal situation applies. If you're suggesting there's some
special wiki concern, I'm not thus far grasping your point.
