On Friday 09 April 2010 07:12:50 Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:02:56PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 April 2010 15:16:14 Ximin Luo wrote: > > > On 04/06/2010 02:41 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Le 6 avr. 2010 15:21, Ximin Luo <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > >> atm the wiki content is licensed with GFDL. Do we want to relicense it > > > >> as > > > >> CC-BY-SA (attribution+sharealike) instead? If so, we should do this > > > >> while the wiki is still young. > > > > > > > > What are the advantages / drawbacks of such a change? > > > > > > > > > > CC-BY-SA has less cruft; GFDL has cover texts and the fact that you have > > > to > > > include the entire text of the license when distributing any part of the > > > work, > > > no matter how small. > > > > > > CC-BY-SA is more general; GFDL is intended for software documentation. > > > > > > CC-BY-SA has been adapted for multiple jurisdictions; GFDL was only > > > developed > > > in the context of US jurisdiction. > > > > Is CC-BY-SA GPL compatible, to enable copy and paste etc? > > Obviously not... as you don't include the licence anymore.
Whereas iirc GFDL is? Of course, GPL is ...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
