Amin Bandali <[email protected]> wrote: > Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: >> I would propose GFDLv1.3+ without invariant sections, since that can then be >> relicensed to CC-BY-SA should anyone need it. > > but reading the text for GFDLv1.3, 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.
And it had been never valid for any blog, only for a ‘wiki’. > I would suggest explicitly asking the FSF or seeking legal advice about that, > to know whether that section still applies today. If one finds the licence itself unclear, there is also a FAQ [1]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html > Another good candidate is CC BY-SA 4.0, which was declared one-way compatible > with GPLv3... ...yet not with FDL (which Guix manual is under). > I have also seen folks license material on their site under GPLv3+. And neither licence is mutually exclusive with the other one!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
