Bastien wrote: >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? IIRC there was some back and forth about compatibility of this statement and the GPL, but cannot remember where I read this. This is obvious, but why not just drop a message to FSF legal team with the question about this issue? After all, Org mode is part of Gnu Emacs and Worg is Org's community page. Best, -- David -- OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6 Jabber.... dmjena@jabber.org Email..... dmaus@ictsoc.de