Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: April 2005:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#12909) GPL licensing of wiki pages
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#12909) GPL licensing of wiki pages

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#12909) GPL licensing of wiki pages
From: "Martin Pollard" <circlemaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:45:15 -0700
Reply-to: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12909 >

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason Short [mailto:jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: 27 April 2005 18:54
>To: circlemaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: (PR#12909) GPL licensing of wiki pages 
>
>
><URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12909 >
>
>> [circlemaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Wed Apr 27 17:15:49 2005]:
>> 
>> Whilst I admire your free software spirit for licensing your web pages
GPL
>> you've kinda got the wrong license.  The GPL is designed for CODE and is
>> worded accordingly, using it for documentation is kinda legally shakey to
>> say the least because you leave too much open to interpretation.  If you
>> want a license that follows the same spirit as the GPL but is designed
>for
>> documentation the FSF has the GFDL
>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html that
>> would probably be more appropriate for your needs.
>
>See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticisms_of_t
>he_GFDL
>.  The GFDL is not compatible with the GPL and isn't even considered a
>"Free" Licence.
>
>-jason

I really only meant it as an example, I should have known better that to
ever mention it.  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ was a
better example (credit to vasc for that).  







[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]