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
This is an interesting point. If you write content on WordPress which is
GPL licensed, why would you then use CC-By-SA. Surely there would be
limitations? Depends on the type of content possibly?
On 06/09/2010 05:45 PM, Jane Wells wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
wp-docs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs
