On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Daniel Bartholomew <db...@askmonty.org> wrote: > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ > > This is the license used by Wikipedia and the share-alike part of the > license ensures that the content remains open. It's a common license > and is well understood and liked by a lot of people. > > Henrik mentioned the problem of attribution with CC licenses, but I > don't think this is an issue with the mediawiki software we're > using because of the edit histories and edit summaries, both of which > fulfill this requirement. For example, the history page for the PBXT > entry in the manual attributes me and Paul McCullagh for our > contributions to the article: > > http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php?title=Manual:PBXT_storage_engine&action=history
But imagine a day when we have some software other than mediawiki for this? (Maybe metadata is ported?) Imagine you wanting to publish a book of the MariaDB manual, the attribution section would make for some interesting read. I am curious how Wikipedia does this? Potentially they'll publish themselves on a CD one day? I knew they were contemplating to change, but didn't notice it happening. What were the arguments in favor? > I don't have much experience with the FDL, so if someone has reasons why > we should use it, please share. In copyleft documentation licenses... there aren't that many to choose from :-( henrik -- email: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi tel: +358-40-5697354 www: www.avoinelama.fi/~hingo book: www.openlife.cc _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
