hello hello

I think we need to make sure at least one license is GPL in keeping with 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

:)

adam

Although I'm not entirely familliar with GFDL (I'll read up on it), it should be fine.

More later.

JF

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.

cheers, Brianna