Re: GNU Arch wiki being moved
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user |
|---|---|
| Organization | The XEmacs Project |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <[email protected]> writes: Thomas> The main issue is license compatibility. Well, GPLvANYTHING is incompatible with Wikipedia :-), as well as all FSF-owned documentation. If you're looking for compatibility over the broad range of possible applications of wiki content, shouldn't you be advocating a permissive license? :-) Thomas> I know it is potentially divisive, especially re Linus -- Thomas> but, y'know, there *are* other kernels.... Linus, Linux, and kernels in general are irrelevant to any Arch licensing decisions as far as I can see. I simply wanted to point out that the "gratuitous screw you" blade is sharp on both edges. I am concerned that given the FSF's radicalism[1] and the dramatic changes in certain parts of draft GPLv3 an "or later" *policy* exposes certain kinds of content to legal risk, for little gain. On the other hand, in the context of a code assignment policy, which Arch probably should have for the usual reasons, code posted to the wiki is of interest only to the extent that you can contact the author and negotiate an assignment, after which wiki content licensing is moot. Footnotes: [1] "Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice." That's a compliment. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.