Re: Content Licenses on WGO

[Lee Tambiah <L_Tambiah linuxmail org>]

Andy Tai wrote:
> Dual license under the GFDL and the CreativeCommon so maximum  
> reusability can be reached.
>
> On 11/1/06, *Quim Gil* < qgil desdeamericaconamor org 
> <mailto:qgil desdeamericaconamor org>> wrote:
>
>     We need a default license for wgo. Any recommendation?
>
>     I guess the first decision is if we go for GFDL or one of the
>     CreativeCommons family.
>
>     I have no strong opinion. Anyone?
>
>     On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 19:54 +0100, Thilo Pfennig wrote:
>     > The license issue should be raised for all content on
>     *.gnome.org. I
>     > think it is possible to have a mix of licenses but the CMS must help
>     > the user to select a license (otherwise there should be a default
>     > one). This would allow us and others to exchange content with
>     > Wikipedia or other documentation projects .Not with
>     OpenOffice.org or
>     > fedoraproject.org <http://fedoraproject.org> though because they
>     choose some kind of minority
>     > licenses: PDL and OPL. Thats why I would rather prefer GFDL or
>     one of
>     > the Creative Commons licenses.
>
>     --
>     Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org
I'm no license expert,  however  I would rather  GNOME go with the GFDL 
partially as I feel it GNOME also represents free software. I also 
concerned about the amount of licenses available within the creative 
commons which in turn could create confusion.