Excuse me for perhaps coming out of left field with this, but is GPL the correct technical name for GPL documentation? I'm thinking this might be more correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License Note on the above link: "(GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project. It is similar to the GNU General Public License, " "The GFDL was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GNU software." Greg ------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Cormack" <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz> To: "Galen Charlton" <galen.charlton@liblime.com> Cc: koha-devel@nongnu.org, koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 4:14:30 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Koha] RFC: relicense wiki.koha.org 2009/5/8 Galen Charlton <galen.charlton@liblime.com>:
Hi,
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ben Finney <ben+koha@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
But it also doesn't solve the incompatibility between the Koha manual, licensed under GPL, and the Wiki content.
Why not license the wiki content also under GPL? Then the same license terms apply to all the software: programs, documentation, and wiki.
Good idea - the GPL seems to have worked OK for the manual. MJ and I discussed this a bit more on #koha yesterday, and MJ also suggested either the GPL or a free-for-all. For the sake of completeness, the other licenses that came up in the discussion include:
CC-BY - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC0 - http://creativecommons.org/license/zero/
I now think that the GPL is the way to go. I've updated the relicensing page on the wiki (http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=relicensing); are there any other comments about the license or the voting process?
Just a simple me too To the idea of the GPL Chris _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
gsl <gsl@rhcl.org> writes:
Excuse me for perhaps coming out of left field with this, but is GPL the correct technical name for GPL documentation? I'm thinking this might be more correct:
No. The FDL is not compatible with the GPL, and has many freedom problems besides. I disagree strongly with the FSF promotion of the FDL for works; it's needlessly restrictive and divisive. The current Koha manual is licensed under GPL and that's good because the manual is licensed compatibly with the programs. The wiki content licensed under the same terms would be a good move. -- \ “What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy | `\ river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.” —Jack | _o__) Handey | Ben Finney
participants (2)
-
Ben Finney -
gsl