On 09/09/09 at 21:43 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 9. September 2009, Jon Dowland wrote: > >> If this was a popular choice (which it doesn't appear to > >> be); it would be blocked on sorting out the wiki.d.o > >> content licensing. > > > > No. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Documentation/Lenny has a very fine and > > sosorted licence situation. All GPL-2+ :) > > Recent info about the wiki license situation and plans: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2009/06/msg00083.html
Choosing CC BY-SA would nicely conflict with our existing documentation, like the Debian new maintainer guide (GPL2+) or developers-reference (GPL2+). Wouldn't it be possible to use CC BY-SA with an additional clause allowing to switch to GPL2+? The french CeCILL license has such a clause (see 5.3.4 in http://www.cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2-en.txt). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
