[Celinux-dev] Re: Policy Document (for embedded wiki)

[Paul Mundt]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:28:03PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:21:34PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > As far as the code snippet issue is concerned, are we really expecting
> > the typical use case to be copying and pasting of GPL'ed code to make a
> > point?
> 
> I wouldn't say "typical", but I would say "common".
> 
> Another thing I mentioned is making our content available for
> inclusion in the kernel docs. If we're successful, I think that will
> be a more common case than moving stuff to Wikipedia.
> 
Would dual-licensing GFDL/GPLv2 be an acceptable compromise for the
"general" case? I'm not particularly set on the GFDL, but it would be
nice to keep the Wikipedia option open, and we certainly won't have any
luck trying to hunt down 'authors' for relicinsing permission after the
submission point.

For those articles that are inlining GPLv2 code directly we obviously
don't have the GFDL option, but for the more general-purpose articles it
would be nice to retain GFDL compatability. The majority of content that
we will end up with that can be migrated in line with Wikipedia policies
will be the more abstract stuff anyways, so I think there's room for the
licenses to co-exist.

We could simply have the site default as GPLv2 (with the "or any later
version" noise removed), and have the licensing scheme selectable at
content creation time with a small note recommending GFDL compliance for
original content for Wikipedia interoperability as well as more liberal
adoption of content through the rest of the embedded linux wiki.