Re: What license for Worg?

[tycho garen <kleinman.sam@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:36:45AM +0200, Bastien wrote:

> Here is what I read at the bottom of every emacswiki.org page:
> 
>   This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public
>   License. [..]

> So this is GPLv2.  Any idea why this isn't GPLv3?

No clue. I must confess that I'm writing this email without the
benefit of a net connection, so I can't check if emacs itself has
moved to GPLv3. If it hasn't I can imagine wanting to keep emacs wiki
compatible with emacs itself. 

> Also, I find the formulation a bit confusing.  Is it the standard
> formulation when multi-licensing?  Where can I found an example of a
> clear multi-licensing statement?

I'm not a lawyer or even particularly interested in the technicalities
of such, but I do think that the emacs-wiki statement errs on the side
of being human intelligible at the expense of concision. 

> I've not made up my mind yet, but I would go for something like that:  
> 
>   The content of the Worg website is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and
>   the GPLv3 and the GFDL 1.3.  You can choose to receive the content of
>   Worg under any of these three licenses.
> 
> Good?

I'd include "or later" statements, so that Worg can optionally take
advantage of any updates to these licenses if they are revised to fix
issues that arise (which is, again, the same as emacs itself.) More
than anything, the "or later" statements, reduce potential future
headache. Perhaps something like 

   The content of the Worg website is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0
   (or later) and the GNU GPLv3 (or later) and the GNU FDL 1.3 (or
   later). You can choose to receive the content of Worg under any of
   these three licenses.

Again, just a thought. 

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