We could also use multi licensing. A possibility is to have, by default, everything licensed at the same time under BSD, CC, FDL and GPL.
(For those who wonder, this suggestion is serious /and/ sarcastic at the same time) Cheers, JP. On 1/9/06, Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:16:45PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Why not use the GPL, then? > > > > > > FWIW, the GFDL is considered non-free by Debian[1], so that would mean > > > any documentation or anything derived from the wiki couldn't be packaged > > > for Debian. > > > > > > Apart from the issue of code itself on the wiki, that other people have > > > already mentioned, presumably you'd also have licence fun if you try to > > > take surrounding explanatory text to use as haddock docs etc. > > > > Let's discuss it on the wiki: > > <http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/HaskellWiki:Community_Portal> > > I don't know if there was a reason you chose my message in particular to > reply to, but I have no intention of discussing this, or anything else, > on a wiki. > > Incidentally, if anyone's collecting votes/opinions, I'd vote "yes" for > any of GPL, BSD, PD, and "no" for any other licence I can think of. > > (I am unlikely to directly contribute anything to the wiki ATM, though). > > > Thanks > Ian > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > Haskell@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell > _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
