I think the GPL itself would be fine for web pages, as long as you make it clear that your page content is source code as far as you're concerned. You can do that by putting the GPL's license notice in a comment block. But the trouble there, I guess, is that GPL's idea of linkage doesn't mesh with the web's idea of linkage... I think the GPL scope would end up extending to content that you embed (e.g. JavaScript files) but not to other pages that you link to.
Has anyone looked at the Design Science License http://www.dsl.org/ as an open source license? It seems to me this would make sense for content that doesn't meet a strict definition of "software" in everyone's book (e.g. a web page) and would also work for parts of the content that are unambiguously software. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Arromdee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:25 AM Subject: Re: discuss: WGPL (WebGPL) > Does this license make it illegal to use an ad-filtering proxy on the page > without accepting the license? After all, using an ad-filtering proxy > copies and modifies the page, and it's not clear that this is 'running the > Web'. > > What about putting the page on a site like Geocities which automatically > modifies the code? Geocities ad-popup code is not GPL, after all. > > What exactly is a "web page"? More specifically, are framed content, inlined > images, etc. considered part of the web page? > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3