Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus defaulting the FDL for all wiki content, including code, is a
very bad idea.
I agree - can we please use BSD or public domain?
Another option is the Open Publication License, which requires
acknowledgement (but little else). Anyway, I think a
Ketil Malde wrote:
Another option is the Open Publication License, which requires
acknowledgement (but little else).
...which would mean that whenever you rearrange something inside the
wiki, you'd have to drag signatures around (and god forbid you
accidentally drop a single one). The only way
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:16:45PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ian Lynagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not use the GPL, then?
FWIW, the GFDL is considered non-free by Debian[1], so that would mean
any documentation or anything derived from the wiki
We could also use multi licensing. A possibility is to have, by
default, everything licensed at the same time under BSD, CC, FDL and
GPL.
(For those who wonder, this suggestion is serious /and/ sarcastic at
the same time)
Cheers,
JP.
On 1/9/06, Ian Lynagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan
G'day all.
Quoting Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree - can we please use BSD or public domain?
Creative Commons by might be an appropriate alternative:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell mailing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ian Lynagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not use the GPL, then?
FWIW, the GFDL is considered non-free by Debian[1], so that would mean
any documentation or anything derived from the wiki couldn't be packaged
for Debian.
Apart from the issue of code itself on
