On Jan 9, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
==
Conclusion
It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate
it in any free software program whatsoever. This is not a mere
license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is i
G'day all.
Quoting Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree - can we please use BSD or public domain?
Creative Commons "by" might be an appropriate alternative:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell mai
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
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
Ketil Malde wrote:
> Another option is the Open Publication License, which requires
> acknowledgement (but little else).
...which would mean that whenever you rearrange something inside the
wiki, you'd have to drag signatures around (and god forbid you
accidentally drop a single one). The only wa
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Thus defaulting the FDL for all wiki content, including code, is a
>> very bad idea.
> I agree - can we please use BSD or public domain?
Another option is the Open Publication License, which requires
acknowledgement (but little else). Anyway, I think
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
==
Conclusion
It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate
it in any free software program whatsoever. This is not a mere
license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is incompatible
with this or that free software license:
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
