On 1/24/07, Jon Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That said, there are projects that will use Google Code that should > > appropriately be 'license X for code, license Y for art/docs/etc.' It > > might not be unreasonable to discuss mixed-license scenarios with the > > Google Code folks at some point, and let them know that that is a > > scenario they should consider for the future. (Esp. if more licenses > > become more cross-compatible in the future as we expect with GPL v3 > > and other new licenses.) > > > > Luis > > Yes, this is true...Would you both like to help hash out a plan for > this? It would be good to dream up how to support this :)
I'd guess the plan for something like Google Code is fairly simple- they've currently got a radiobox for licenses, right, which says something like 'license for the project.' Make that list 'license for the project's code', and once that is selected, provide a list of compatible licenses for non-code contributions (which probably should include 'we haven't thought about this yet/whatever those contributors want to use', or something similar.) > Oh know, a universe of per-document licenses :) Best practices for code does include licenses in the headers/metadata of every file, so that if they become separated from the 'body' of the code, they still carry their licensing information with them. I assume the same would be true for other documents. It might be nice, actually, for CC and FSF to collaborate on publishing a document on licensing best-practices for open content. (Is there a less passive word than 'content' which encompasses both 'content' (art/documentation/etc.) and code?) Luis _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
