Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

["Luis Villa" <luis AT tieguy.org>]

On 1/24/07, Jon Phillips <jon AT rejon.org> wrote:
> > That said, there are projects that will use Google Code that should
> > appropriately be 'license X for code, license Y for art/docs/etc.' It
> > might not be unreasonable to discuss mixed-license scenarios with the
> > Google Code folks at some point, and let them know that that is a
> > scenario they should consider for the future. (Esp. if more licenses
> > become more cross-compatible in the future as we expect with GPL v3
> > and other new licenses.)
> >
> > Luis
>
> Yes, this is true...Would you both like to help hash out a plan for
> this? It would be good to dream up how to support this :)

I'd guess the plan for something like Google Code is fairly simple-
they've currently got a radiobox for licenses, right, which says
something like 'license for the project.' Make that list 'license for
the project's code', and once that is selected, provide a list of
compatible licenses for non-code contributions (which probably should
include 'we haven't thought about this yet/whatever those contributors
want to use', or something similar.)

> Oh know, a universe of per-document licenses :)

Best practices for code does include licenses in the headers/metadata
of every file, so that if they become separated from the 'body' of the
code, they still carry their licensing information with them. I assume
the same would be true for other documents.

It might be nice, actually, for CC and FSF to collaborate on
publishing a document on licensing best-practices for open content.
(Is there a less passive word than 'content' which encompasses both
'content' (art/documentation/etc.) and code?)

Luis