On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:52:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 09/09/09 at 16:18 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:04:16PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > Choosing CC BY-SA would nicely conflict with our existing documentation, > > > like the Debian new maintainer guide (GPL2+) or developers-reference > > > (GPL2+). Wouldn't it be possible to use CC BY-SA with an additional > > > clause allowing to switch to GPL2+? > > > > > > The french CeCILL license has such a clause (see 5.3.4 in > > > http://www.cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2-en.txt). > > > > Why are we discussing this, given that from early feedback it was more > > or less clear that we do not want to go the wiki way for devref? > > That would apply to moving content from the wiki to dev-ref. If the wiki > is CC BY-SA, and dev-ref is GPL2+, we have a problem.
Since we still are discussing wiki licensing, we should ask wiki people to dual license its contents with GPL2+ and CeCILL. Whatever reorganization of documentation we do, we will inherit some GPL2+ contents. So having compatible license for wiki posted contents are quite important. FYI: I posted this request to debian-...@lists.debian.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
