Re: What license for Worg?

[tycho garen <garen@tychoish.com>]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Bastien wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
> 
> Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
> GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
> 3.0[3] license.  This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
> from Worg and put them into Org manual for later inclusion in Emacs,
> which uses GFDL 1.3 for the Emacs manual.
> 
> Would any Worg contributor have objection to this?
> 
> I'm open to any suggestion, please let ideas flow.

This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is
that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm
not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but
it's worth considering. 

My impulse for free-software-style writing projects is to use the
emacs wiki license statement which says CC-BY-SA/GFDL/GPL 3 or later
(with a clarification of what constitutes "corresponding source
code"), but that might be a bit vague in some cases. 

Cheers! 
sam

-- 
tycho(ish) @
 garen@tychoish.com
  http://www.tychoish.com/
  http://www.cyborginstitute.com/
  "don't get it right, get it written" -- james thurber