I think we need to make sure at least one license is GPL in keeping
the software itself. I don't think there's any problem with dual
licensing - at least personally - or even triple, if need be. What does
FLOSS Manuals require/recommend, Adam?
All material in FM is GPL (http://en.flossmanuals.net/license
) this is
so the docs are compatible with the code (they are the same thing if you
ask me but don't ever try and get that argument past a programmer).
since we are all the authors individually for various sections we should
all agree on the dual licensing explicitly (don't you love licensing, it
makes our life sooooo much more pleasant and interesting and not at all
like wasting our precious time on this earth). I'm happy if the content
is also released under FDL but.. wasn't WM escaping the FDL? I thought
it was also possible to submit CC SA-BY-NC content to WMF projects? If
so, and if it makes no difference to you, then I would prefer the CC
option (see - http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange
but at the end of the day, GPL + whatever is fine with me
Although I'm not entirely familliar with GFDL (I'll read up
on it), it
should be fine.
PS - I'm sending this to the list too, since I think it's an important
discussion to have there.
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> BTW, a question: what license is intended to be used for the material
> created during the book sprint?
> Text at Wikimedia Commons, and almost all of the Wikimedia projects,
> is GFDL. If the booksprint content was licensed (or dual licensed)
> under this license, it would allow it to be easily incorporated and
> integrated into Commons help texts and such. If the content was
> solely licensed under GFDL, it would allow FLOSS Manuals to integrate
> back any useful text from Commons et al.
> Just a thought.
+ 31 6 2808 7108