Re: [wiki] ideal content license for wiki.debian.org
On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 19:35 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> What would be the ideal license for content at
BSD 2 clause license your proposing seems fairly good, but I not a
However, the ideal license would allow sharing the content with other
1. Share contents with Debian documentation (listed below), because some
document could be started on the wiki and published later on those
www.debian.org OPL>= draft v1
Debian New Maintainers' Guide : GPL>=2
Debian Policy Manual : GPL>=2
Debian Developer's Reference : GPL>=2
Debian GNU/Linux Installation Guide : GPL v2
Debian Reference : GPL >=2
2. Linux distributions share their software package, but not the
documentation... what a bad habit (This may change some day, so we
should avoid setting-up barriers).
It would be great to be able to fork distro-specific documents from
other source, like :
wikipedia.org : GFDL >= 1.2
wiki.ubuntu.com : CC-SA 2.5 Generic (??)
gentoo-wiki.com : Public Domain by default.
wiki.netbsd.se : unclear.
wiki.freebsd.org: no license fount.
wiki.fedora.com : OPL v1
wiki.centos.org : CC-SA 3.0 Unported
> I'd like to keep this discussion separate from the
> significant issues of how a license change would be
> I believe a DFSG compatible license is desirable
> and I'd like to suggest the 2-clause BSD license.
I like the concept of "The source code must be available" of the GPL.
Under BSD-2-clauses, If someone modifies and publish a book, then the
author may not "give back" it's modifications "as source", right ?
P.S. In case some doesn't knows it yet... some DFSG and non-DFSG
licenses are listed here : http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses