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

[Bill Traynor]

On 10/16/06, Paul Mundt <lethal at linux-sh.org> wrote:
> 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.

So do we have any kind of concensus for site licensing?  Is the latter
paragraph reasonable?

Bill
> _______________________________________________
> Celinux-dev mailing list
> Celinux-dev at tree.celinuxforum.org
> http://tree.celinuxforum.org/mailman/listinfo/celinux-dev
>