Hi,
the thread discussing licenses for the Wiki content (and maybe for other
documentation coming from the CentOS project) somehow slept in during
discussion.
That's why I want to reopen discussion:
So far we found 4 licenses which should be inspected a little bit deeper
(pros and cons are from me). This is if we *want* to have the content in
the wiki under some form of license.
The Creative Commons license which CC suggests for wikis:
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/>
Pro: Easy to understand, easy to embed.
Three-Layer system: Easy user readable license backed by a license
for lawyers and a machine readable part (can be searched for by
google and yahoo, for example.
Available for ~70 different jurisdictions/countries
Con: The FSF begs you to stay away from these licenses for
documentations
GFDL - The GNU Free Documentation License:
<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>
Con: It's legalese at its best. I have read it a few times now and still
don't understand it.
FreeBSD Documentation license
<http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html>
Pro: Seems fairly easy to understand
Con: Seems to be written especially for Documentation in book format.
Opencontent license
<http://opencontent.org/openpub/>
Pro: Seems fairly easy
Con: I've never heard of this up until now (which doesn't have to mean
anything
Are there any people with some law background in the house?
Opinions, please.
Ralph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061027/326b3b97/attachment-0001.sig>