Hi Ihor, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes:
> Bastien Guerry <b...@gnu.org> writes: > >> At some point, RMS asked for Worg content to be released under the GNU >> FDL, which is now the case. I think it would make sense to release it >> under *both* the GNU FDL and CC-by-SA 4.0. Perhaps it would also make >> sense to ask contributors to agree not to copy content they are not the >> author of (copied from elsewhere or S/LLM-generated). > > Maybe I am missing something, but how can we do more than one license > for the same WORG page? There are two ways in which two licences can "apply" to some content: either by covering different parts of it, or by offering users a choice of which licence to accept. Worg content is already covered by two licenses in the first sense: GNU FDL 1.3 or later for documentation and GNU GPL 3.0 or later for code. If deemed useful by the community and potential contributors, we could also propose to license Worg's documentation non-code parts under both GNU FDL 1.3 or later and Creative Commons BY SA 4.0 - this would require getting permission to relicense past contents under CC by SA 4.0 though, which might be a chore. HTH! -- Bastien Guerry
