Difference between revisions of "new license"
(Misconceptions and my 2c) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Please, discuss at the section "discussion" and add links into the section "links". --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | Please, discuss at the section "discussion" and add links into the section "links". --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Misconceptions== | ||
| + | # FSF does not enforce the licences themselves when they do not posess the copyright. They will only provide some guidance to the copyright holders. [[User:Beta M|Beta M]] 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | # From this we can come to another misconception that FSF can "allow" somebody to switch from one licence to another. Copyright holder can do what one desires. [[User:Beta M|Beta M]] 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | # There are some licences which are compatible in a way Millosh describes. For example one can take a new BSD licenced work and GPLv2 or higher it, this is the case even when one isn't the original author, but is just one of the contributors. [[User:Beta M|Beta M]] 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
| + | Personally i'm up for public domain, and i release all my work on this project in such a way. Public domain is compatible with any licence. For example, if i create a pd article and Millosh edits that article claiming that it's now under GFDL, the result is in fact under GFDL... and all subsequent editors must respect that. However, anybody can still release their work in PD... since all licences work on top of the copyright there's no restriction upon the actual author (copyright holder) whatsoever. [[User:Beta M|Beta M]] 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
Revision as of 05:19, 26 July 2007
We should talk here about possible new license of Anarchopedia. AFAIK, GNU/FSF will allow switch from GFDL to something which they are calling "GNU Wiki license". This is not so new information, but as GPLv3 realized, it seems that new GFDL will be realized, too. --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
In general, we may stay on GFDL (something like GFDLv2 instead of v1.2), because it seems that SFDL and GNU Wiki license will be possible to adopt under GFDL (but not vice-versa). However, a practical problem is that GFDL is really bad license for one wiki (even we are anarchists and we will not sue each other for infringement of GFDL ;) ). --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So, question is what to do? --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, discuss at the section "discussion" and add links into the section "links". --Milos Rancic 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Misconceptions
- FSF does not enforce the licences themselves when they do not posess the copyright. They will only provide some guidance to the copyright holders. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- From this we can come to another misconception that FSF can "allow" somebody to switch from one licence to another. Copyright holder can do what one desires. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are some licences which are compatible in a way Millosh describes. For example one can take a new BSD licenced work and GPLv2 or higher it, this is the case even when one isn't the original author, but is just one of the contributors. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
Personally i'm up for public domain, and i release all my work on this project in such a way. Public domain is compatible with any licence. For example, if i create a pd article and Millosh edits that article claiming that it's now under GFDL, the result is in fact under GFDL... and all subsequent editors must respect that. However, anybody can still release their work in PD... since all licences work on top of the copyright there's no restriction upon the actual author (copyright holder) whatsoever. Beta M 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
