On 6/9/10 6:40 PM, Arlen Beiler wrote:
How are they incompatible? I read the two over briefly, and it didn't
seem incompatible, though they easily could be. Could you point me to
where you are reading.
Also, this is a software licence, not a documentation license. The
whole licence doesn't make sense from a documentation point of view.
I, for one, am releasing all my contributions under GPL, CC-By-SA, and
(will maybe) GFDL (just in case). That includes all past
contributions. If all the contributors would do the same, or at least
GPL and CC-By-SA, it would help quite a bit.
The issue of why the Codex is GPL is a valid question, and one I am not
getting into here.
What I will get into is that at this time is that right now, the Codex
*is* licensed as GPL. That means that CC-by-SA is not compatible,
because it requires attribution -- a restriction on how users use the
content. If you want to license content about WordPress under a CC-By-SA
license, then you should post it on your own site, not on the Codex, as
the two licenses are not compatible, since they say inherently different
things.
Jane
_______________________________________________
wp-docs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs
