[Dovecot] Wiki license
Any suggestions as to what license to use for wiki.dovecot.org?
I should have specified this a long time ago, but luckily(?) most of the content is written by me, so I don't think there are going to be problems.
The main choices are:
a) GNU Free Documentation License
b) Creative Commons (Attribution-Share Alike?)
It could also be dual-licensed to both to maximize the distribution possibilities.
On 2007-12-16 22:43:18 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
a) GNU Free Documentation License
b) Creative Commons (Attribution-Share Alike?)
It could also be dual-licensed to both to maximize the distribution possibilities.
CC Share Alike 3
GFDL has some sucking part about the license when using parts of the documentation.
darix-- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:52 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-12-16 22:43:18 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
a) GNU Free Documentation License
b) Creative Commons (Attribution-Share Alike?)
It could also be dual-licensed to both to maximize the distribution possibilities.
CC Share Alike 3
GFDL has some sucking part about the license when using parts of the documentation.
I'm not sure if this would matter or not, but... Debian has previously said that the CC licenses are not DFSG-free. From what I can see, no opinion has been released on the version 3 licenses. See: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian
A dual-license of GFDL (without invariant sections) and CC SA 3 should be okay with Debian, though. (I'm not a DD and am not speaking for the project.)
Dovecot is MIT & LGPL, so why not choose one of those? The only down-side of an MIT license is that someone could take the work and put it into a non-free product. With documentation, the biggest potential problem would be someone making a Dovecot book.
If you're not worried about that, really a Public Domain declaration should work. Here's what Wikipedia uses: This [content] has been released into the public domain by its author, [NAME]. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: [NAME] grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
Richard
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 16:01 -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:52 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-12-16 22:43:18 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
a) GNU Free Documentation License
b) Creative Commons (Attribution-Share Alike?)
It could also be dual-licensed to both to maximize the distribution possibilities.
CC Share Alike 3
GFDL has some sucking part about the license when using parts of the documentation.
I'm not sure if this would matter or not, but... Debian has previously said that the CC licenses are not DFSG-free. From what I can see, no opinion has been released on the version 3 licenses. See: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian
A dual-license of GFDL (without invariant sections)
Was there something optional, or do you mean I should modify it myself?.. I remember GFDL wasn't Debian-compatible either earlier.
Dovecot is MIT & LGPL, so why not choose one of those?
I thought those wouldn't apply well to documentation. Although I suppose MIT could work.
The only down-side of an MIT license is that someone could take the work and put it into a non-free product. With documentation, the biggest potential problem would be someone making a Dovecot book.
Isn't it already possible with GFDL/CC? Although I guess it could require the book to be under the same license as well.
If you're not worried about that, really a Public Domain declaration should work.
Somehow I don't feel good about giving away my copyrights, even if I would never do anything useful with them.
participants (4)
-
Charles Marcus
-
Marcus Rueckert
-
Richard Laager
-
Timo Sirainen