On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 12:13 America/New_York, Frank Barknecht
wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
We should also discuss the license up front. My vote is for Creative Commons ShareAlike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ ) for the written materials, and GNU GPL for the code.
GPL for code is fine, but I'm on a - as Josh would put it, and I like that word ;) - "personal vendetta" against CC licenses, so I'd rather not put my material under this kind of license. Unfortunatly I didn't find another one, that is in widespread use and still fits all people. GNU Free Documentation would be nice in general, but seems to have several problems with several things (see debian.org). Darn, I don't know much else than that I don't like CC, and I can't even put my CC aversion into sensible words.
Well, it would be good to have some reasons, because as far as I know,
the CC ShareAlike license would fit this very well. We could also just
GPL and call it a day, but there seems to be reasons to not GPL docs,
which I don't really know.
.hc
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it."
- Thomas Jefferson