and this time with a decision, please. Hi, I just had a talk with someone on IRC who wanted to reuse stuff from <http://wiki.centos.org/MarketingMaterial> and asked me about the licensing of content on there. Which made me think "Well, let us restart this discussion again". We *do* need a license for content on the wiki. The three licenses we're favouring (well, sort of) are: The GNU Free Documentation License CreativeCommons with attribution Open Documentation License I'm still favouring nr. 2, as it is the easiest to understand and is available in several languages. Cheers, Ralph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20070302/a53125fa/attachment-0002.sig>
Ralph, thanks for bringing this up, i think we need to resolve this and resolve it quickly. Ralph Angenendt wrote:> and this time with a decision, please. > > Hi, > > I just had a talk with someone on IRC who wanted to reuse stuff from > <http://wiki.centos.org/MarketingMaterial> and asked me about the > licensing of content on there. > > Which made me think "Well, let us restart this discussion again". We > *do* need a license for content on the wiki. The three licenses we're > favouring (well, sort of) are: > > The GNU Free Documentation License > CreativeCommons with attribution > Open Documentation License >CC with Attribution has my vote, however i am not a lawyer Also, while we are here at this topic, we need to finalise and put in place some means for Authors on the wiki to agree to using this license for all their stuff that goes onto the wiki. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:05:43 +0100 Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de> wrote:> CreativeCommons with attribution+1 And maybe add a "and later versions clause", because the CC licenses are revised every now and then. -- Daniel