Right, mitchell mentioned this just recently, and we were thinking along the same lines. Mitchell suggested Attribution or Attribution/Share-alike. The latter requires derived works to be governed by the same CC A/S-a license. That might hamper book authors.
Well, it depends if we want book authors to be able to write "closed source" books based on our work. Books of "sharealike" text, such as the MySQL manual, have been published successfully in the past.
Good point! I don't. Maybe others feel differently, though.
DevMo may wish to link to xulplanet.org and other great doc-sites, but such linking may lead to server overload and outage. If we want DevMo to stand alone, we'll want to try to incorporate all the good docs already out there, as much as possible. That will require getting everyone to agree on license. Perhaps existing sites use licenses such as a CC one already. Can you take a look?
There is even less of a consensus around documentation licenses as there is around code licenses (and we have at least three of those ;-).
Request for help/buck-passing: anyone else know of large bodies of docs for free software projects, and their licensing choices?
Gerv _______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
