Well... maybe. This thread happened years ago on the Digistan lists. FDL is for documentation, books, not standards that act as formal recipes. Cc-by-sa lacks the patent clauses that GPL v3 has. For my own standards work, I'll always use GPL v3. Others may use what they prefer.
Pieter On Sep 8, 2012 7:11 PM, "Bjorn Reese" <bre...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote: > On 2012-09-07 04:44, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > > > "Note on use of the GPL: we use this license to cover the > > specification text itself, not implementations. You can license your > > own code under any license you wish. If you make derived versions of > > this specification, you must share them under the GPL. The goal of > > this is to prevent private extensions of our specifications." > > Rather than using a license designed for software, you may consider > a license designed for documentation. For instance, both of these > fulfil the goal: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
