>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> The main issue is license compatibility.
Well, GPLvANYTHING is incompatible with Wikipedia :-), as well as all
FSF-owned documentation. If you're looking for compatibility over the
broad range of possible applications of wiki content, shouldn't you be
advocating a permissive license? :-)
Thomas> I know it is potentially divisive, especially re Linus --
Thomas> but, y'know, there *are* other kernels....
Linus, Linux, and kernels in general are irrelevant to any Arch
licensing decisions as far as I can see. I simply wanted to point out
that the "gratuitous screw you" blade is sharp on both edges.
I am concerned that given the FSF's radicalism[1] and the dramatic
changes in certain parts of draft GPLv3 an "or later" *policy* exposes
certain kinds of content to legal risk, for little gain. On the other
hand, in the context of a code assignment policy, which Arch probably
should have for the usual reasons, code posted to the wiki is of
interest only to the extent that you can contact the author and
negotiate an assignment, after which wiki content licensing is moot.
Footnotes:
[1] "Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice." That's a
compliment.
--
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
