Hi Tycho, tycho garen <ga...@tychoish.com> writes:
> This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is > that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm > not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but > it's worth considering. Mhh.. yes, you're right. > My impulse for free-software-style writing projects is to use the > emacs wiki license statement which says CC-BY-SA/GFDL/GPL 3 or later > (with a clarification of what constitutes "corresponding source > code"), but that might be a bit vague in some cases. Here is what I read at the bottom of every emacswiki.org page: This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public License. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work under any other license that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the same restriction. For example, you may choose to receive this work under the GNU Free Documentation License, the CreativeCommons ShareAlike License, the XEmacs manual license, or similar licenses. So this is GPLv2. Any idea why this isn't GPLv3? Also, I find the formulation a bit confusing. Is it the standard formulation when multi-licensing? Where can I found an example of a clear multi-licensing statement? I've not made up my mind yet, but I would go for something like that: The content of the Worg website is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and the GPLv3 and the GFDL 1.3. You can choose to receive the content of Worg under any of these three licenses. Good? -- Bastien _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
