Andy Tai wrote:
> Dual license under the GFDL and the CreativeCommon so maximum
> reusability can be reached.
>
> On 11/1/06, *Quim Gil* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> We need a default license for wgo. Any recommendation?
>
> I guess the first decision is if we go for GFDL or one of the
> CreativeCommons family.
>
> I have no strong opinion. Anyone?
>
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 19:54 +0100, Thilo Pfennig wrote:
> > The license issue should be raised for all content on
> *.gnome.org. I
> > think it is possible to have a mix of licenses but the CMS must help
> > the user to select a license (otherwise there should be a default
> > one). This would allow us and others to exchange content with
> > Wikipedia or other documentation projects .Not with
> OpenOffice.org or
> > fedoraproject.org <http://fedoraproject.org> though because they
> choose some kind of minority
> > licenses: PDL and OPL. Thats why I would rather prefer GFDL or
> one of
> > the Creative Commons licenses.
>
> --
> Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org
>
I'm no license expert, however I would rather GNOME go with the GFDL
partially as I feel it GNOME also represents free software. I also
concerned about the amount of licenses available within the creative
commons which in turn could create confusion.
_______________________________________________
gnome-web-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list
