The Wiki has no license(So we must fix that).

Jason Self jself at gnu.org
Mon Feb 28 04:28:33 UTC 2011


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dennis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote:
> I propose choosing the same license than wikipedia:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> 
> What do you think?

What about simultaneously licensing under CC-BY-SA and the GNU Free 
Documentation License?

Also, it looks like there are small code snippets on the wiki. Would it be a 
good idea to consier licensing for those? Perhaps a triple licensing of 
CC-BY-SA, the GFDL, and the GPL? I think it would provide for maximum 
compatibility, and people would be free to use code snippets under the GPL
instead of getting the code under CC-BY-SA, which isn't compatible with
the GPL.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk1rJHEACgkQb8syyUdIaWKBnACgwfE+cUhlhLR79eTRTAzvDJmb
8EkAoK1cETw58HB26h2j89eJFBII59dH
=s6X1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Replicant mailing list