Hi Ludo’, all, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello, > [...] > I would propose GFDLv1.3+ without invariant sections, since that can > then be relicensed to CC-BY-SA should anyone need it. > > Thoughts? > > Ludo’. I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but reading the text for GFDLv1.3 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html>, specifically "11. RELICENSING", it seems to me that the explicit permission to relicense GFDLv1.3-covered work to CC BY-SA 3.0 was only valid until August 1, 2009. Thus, I would suggest explicitly asking the FSF or seeking legal advice about that, to know whether that section still applies today. Another good candidate is CC BY-SA 4.0, which was declared one-way compatible with GPLv3 <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3>; but it does have its own gotchas <https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3#Option_to_comply_with_later_versions>. I have also seen folks license material on their site under GPLv3+. I currently do that for the material on my personal site. That's my 2¢; hope it helps.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
