Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Liz Rea <lrea@nekls.org> wrote: [...]
Does anyone have suggestions as to which license, and what wording, to put on the site to license its content in a FOSS-friendly manner?
Since we are in the process of relicensing the wiki under GPL2, I would suggest we also license this under GPL2 for consistency's sake. It would be good to get all things Koha under the same license.
There are two good ways to approach this IMO:- 1. much of the other Koha-related materials are under GPL2+, so we should license the community website under the same terms, so all the explanations and arguments made before still apply and we don't have to think about it too much; OR 2. we consider that stuff on the community website is advertising that should be spread as widely as possible, so we put it under a really liberal license like No Problem Bugroff, WTFPL, MIT/Expat or anything else compatible with GPL2+ (just in case it ends up in Koha itself). Personally, as a worker-owner of an asset-locked company, I find it much easier and safer not to assign copyright to anyone, but others may prefer to assign copyright (or execute FLAs or whatever is appropriate) to HLT or some other friendly place that is willing to accept it. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op