From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleh Krehel Subject: Re: How to make a non-GPL Org-mode exporter? Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:08:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87zj2e0xgq.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87pp3dvm18.fsf@mbork.pl> <55B62668.7020100@grinta.net> <87h9opv8nr.fsf@mbork.pl> <87si881ztu.fsf@gmail.com> <87egjrhv4i.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50287) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKksO-0005aO-38 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:15:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKksJ-0000O5-G9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:15:47 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]:33590) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKksJ-0000Mm-6s for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:15:43 -0400 Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so14788356wic.0 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 03:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from firefly (dyn069045.nbw.tue.nl. [131.155.69.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bm9sm29067749wib.10.2015.07.30.03.15.40 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 03:15:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87egjrhv4i.fsf@gmail.com> (Aaron Ecay's message of "Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:54:37 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Aaron, Aaron Ecay writes: >> Besides, CC-BY-NC-SA is compatible with GPL! Compatible. With GPL. > > This isn=E2=80=99t correct. -NC licenses are non-Free (in the FSF sense = of the > word): > -SA licenses are Free, but not GPL-compatible, as indicated > by the dashed orange line in the left-hand margin at: > Thanks for clarifying. Maybe I should switch to CC-BY-SA instead. Theoretically, I wouldn't want someone to simply mirror my blog and put ads on it. But I guess it would be fine if a link to my blog is provided, since then the reader is then aware of the option for ad-free posts. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to restrict anyone from significantly building upon my content and making money from that. --Oleh