Re: simplest copyleft license for a wiki
"Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> writes:
> You should spell these licenses out in full, such as "the GNU General
> Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation". You
> should include the "as published by" clause so that nobody unscrupulous
> decides to publish a GPL that is really a proprietary license.
Actually we changed the wording a bit so that any copyleft license is
acceptable; the GPL is now just an example. Thus, even if a new GPL
appeared not published by the FSF, I would not mind as long as it is a
copyleft license. More about this in a reply to another post,
however.
The new wording:
6. You may change the license to any other copyleft license such as
the GPL, GFDL, CC SA, or the XEmacs manual license.
> There are some rather serious problems with the GFDL that Debian is
> trying to work out with the FSF. You can search the archives when they
> come back online.
I have read some of the threads and the summaries available on the
web, thanks.
Alex.
--
.O. http://www.emacswiki.org/alex/
..O Schroeder's first law:
OOO The coffee at the office shall taste terrible.
Reply to: