On 27/07/15 14:42, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Daniele Nicolodi <dani...@grinta.net> writes: > >> On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote: >>> I disagree. Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do. >>> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even >>> copy). Such things should definitely be in PD. > > [many excellent comments. As a nit, to reuse another's work under the > GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you > need their affirmative permission. And if much of org is assigned to > the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission. That's a > use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.] > > Indeed. A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing > in a project in is more than a legal matter. The license terms are a > declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people > contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed. > > In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the > recipients receive rights to further share (and more). In other words, > not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are > distributed) will also be Free Software. With a BSD-style license, or > PD, derived works may or may not be Free. > > Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted > code and have it be PD. And as Daniele points out, new works being PD > only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0).
Very good points! I really like the "declaration of intent" pint of view. Cheers, Daniele