[Fwd: [AktiviX-discuss] Re: GPL for the AktiviX wiki?]
mp at fsc.cc
Mon Jul 19 18:47:18 EDT 2004
FYI: a discussion from AktiviX-discuss referring to:
https://wiki.aktivix.org/AktiviX:Copyrights and a debate about licenses.
Includes a comment about CC.
This discussion was connected to this list as:
Re: License for group of authors on
> From: MJ Ray <mjr at dsl.pipex.com>
> To: Chris <chris at aktivix.org>
> Cc: AktiviX Discussion List <aktivix-discuss at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: [AktiviX-discuss] Re: GPL for the AktiviX wiki?
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:25:37 +0100
> On 2004-07-19 11:40:44 +0100 Chris <chris at aktivix.org> wrote:
> > My question is -- is the GPL suitable for a site where
> > most of the content is not software?
> I think you mean "not programs" rather than "not software". Clearly,
> the AktiviX wiki content is not hardware, firmware or wetware!
> At the moment, some debian developers (including me) recommend using
> the GPL (but think that you should state clearly which form is "the
> preferred form for modification" or "Source" if it's at all
> questionable) if you want a copyleft or the MIT/X11-style licence if
> you don't want a copyleft. Many debian publications, including the
> Developers Reference, are released under the GPL
> The FDL has few fundamental problems, mostly relating to tethering
> free software (the main document) to non-free software (the secondary
> sections), but there are a few odd wording problems which I hope will
> be ironed out in the next version.
> The CC licences have a common problem in requiring you to delete all
> appearances of the name of an author if they request it. In most
> cases, that's not going to be a bug problem, but the potential is
> there for some icky messes. Also, there's a practical problem with
> most authors including the CC trademark terms as part of licences,
> because of a presentational error that CC seem unwilling to fix. If
> included, the trademark terms are an obvious problem.
> So, you have those two licences, neither of which are free software
> licences, while there are free software licences which can cover
> My question is -- are the FDL and CC licences suitable for a site
> where most of the content is about free software?
More information about the cc-licenses