From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: What license for Worg? Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:36:45 +0200 Message-ID: <8739uvxaci.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874ofd19fd.fsf@altern.org> <20100803125324.GB32422@deleuze.linlan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39987 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OgVik-0004T2-K7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:36:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OgVij-0007ca-6h for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:36:50 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:45320) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OgVij-0007cO-1I for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:36:49 -0400 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so5668149wyg.0 for ; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:36:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100803125324.GB32422@deleuze.linlan> (tycho garen's message of "Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:53:24 -0400") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: tycho garen Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Tycho, tycho garen writes: > 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. Mhh.. yes, you're right. > 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. 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. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work under any other license that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the same restriction. For example, you may choose to receive this work under the GNU Free Documentation License, the CreativeCommons ShareAlike License, the XEmacs manual license, or similar licenses. So this is GPLv2. Any idea why this isn't GPLv3? 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'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? -- Bastien