Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote: [...] > I can't speak for the community as a whole, so my comments are only my > own. Since we already discussed and agreed on a CC-BY-SA licence I'd > much rather stick to that. I don't see any need to dual licence. I > could be persuaded if we were talking about a licence that was > appropriate for text, or if there were a need to use some other > licence. But dual licencing under the GPL makes no sense to me at all > - it will only serve to confuse things in my opinion. > > What do others think?
The usual argument for dual-licensing textbooks and developer manuals under the GPL is that then any program code copied or adapted from pseudo-code is obviously usable in GPL'd programs. It's not very clear what CC-BY-SA means for programs IIRC - but given the poor clarity of most CC localisations in general, that might not be the most serious of problems. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
