[AktiviX-discuss] Re: GPL for the AktiviX wiki?

[Harry Halpin]

Not to make this too difficult, but I think it's obvious that Aktivix
folks use the "GNU Free Documentation License". It's based on the 
fundamental freedoms of the GPL, but is worded so that instead of applying
to programs, it applies to any useful document. It's a better choice than 
the GPL for documents, and lacks some of the weakness of Creative 
Commons. While it was made originally for manuals (such as the GNU 
Project's emacs manuals), I think it would make sense with a Wiki.

It's at:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

It's first two paragraphs read:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other 
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure 
everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or 
without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, 
this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit 
for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications 
made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of 
the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the 
GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free 
software. 

			-Harry


 

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, ana wrote:

> hi
> 
> explanation i gave in another list with no objection:
> 
> you have copy right. all rights reserved. the author keeps all his 
> rights selfishly and does not want to share.
> 
> you have copy left. no righgs reserved. gpl is a kind of copy left. all 
> rights 'reversed'. the author is not selfish, shares teh work with every 
> one and wants every one who works with her work to share her work too.
> 
> then you have creative commons. in the middle, but flexible enough to be 
> more or less nearer to copy right or left. some rights reserved.
> 
> another criteria: gpl is good for software.
> 
> cc, creative commons, is good for art, like music or written word.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Dawson wrote:
> 
> >Quoting Chris <chris at slugbug.org.uk>:
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >>OK, well I'm convinced :-)
> >>
> >>Is anyone _opposed_ to using the GPL for the wiki content?
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I'm afraid most of this license stuff has completely confused me
> >
> >
> >firstly..
> >Can somebody make a simple matrix that will explain the differences to mortals
> >like me
> >
> >secondly..
> >would using the GPL (rather than the GFDL or a CC ) lock us into unwanted
> >behaviour later.. in event (but not limited too) of a fork say?
> >
> >AED
> >  
> >
> 
>