wiki: Re: license for tldp
Subject:
Re: [wiki] Fwd: license for tldp
From:
James Hess ####@####.####
Date:
8 May 2009 02:30:01 +0100
Message-Id: <6eb799ab0905071825y4cac79f9r267733484d4953f9@mail.gmail.com>
I would be in favor of making the CC-BY-SA license the "default", or
a dual-licensing scheme the default. And converting to CC, provided
the licenses can be compatible. And there are not serious objections
to the CC-BY-SA license by authors...
CC-BY-SA doesn't have provisions for non-free things like "cover" texts
and invariant sections the GFDL allows to be added to documents. In
that respect it's better protection, and "more free" than the GFDL.
And yes, the GFDL requirement to publish the license is a bit
unwieldy, primarily
because the GFDL is such a big license. IMO it should be little
issue to publish a short/brief license like the CC-BY-SA in most
howtos.
But the GFDL is a 10-page document that could be bigger than some HOWTOs.
i.e. Suppose someone wanted to make a print book containing a few
documents from the TLDP.
Would it be an issue if some of were GFDL and some were CC?
Probably not, if they met the GFDL requirements and no invarient
sections/cover texts were used in any of the works, but it's something
to consider.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:11 AM, jdd for http://tldp.org ####@####.#### wrote:
> Chris Watkins a écrit :
--
-J
