Draft: License policy for contributors
daniel at fooishbar.org
Tue Dec 2 11:49:43 PST 2008
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 07:35:54PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/2 Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>:
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:48:31PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >> I don't know what our documentation licensing stance is. MIT would keep
> >> things simple, but I don't know if it's appropriate for docs.
> > What're our options? GFDL is out as DFSG-incompatible.
> GFDL is an unspeakable Cthulhu-grade horror if you go anywhere deeper
> than the surface. It's amazing how little types of stuff it actually
> makes sense from; no-one knows what the hell would happen in a serious
> courtroom stoush given the already vast disparity between the letter
> of the license and widespread practice.
> Learn from Wikipedia's HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE MISTAKE. Don't go there.
> Whatever you do.
Yeah, I really dislike it, but cheerfully we still have a policy (well,
it's rather beer-coaster as policies go, but what isn't) of only taking
DFSG-compliant licenses, so it's objectively not suitable.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg