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

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 23:28 -0500, Jason Self wrote:
> -----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?
Good idea,
Basically I think having everybody agree on one or more free software
licenses is more important than the license itself, so I'm ok with that
too.
It also seem better than what I initially proposed.
> 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.
Note that the code is initially apache2.0 (same as cyanogen and
android).
That is incompatible with GPLv2.
If we choose GPLv3, it makes the snippet GPLv3, which will go into the
tree if someone port to another device, and I will have to change the
licensing of a lot of parts:I will have to take into account the
propagation of the license.
That will also make some problems with upstream if we go upstream one
day.

Note that I love the GPLv3 but here it doesn't seem the best
strategy(too much work to be done, basically I would end up working on
licensing instead of freeing android)

Denis.