Draft: License policy for contributors
dgerard at gmail.com
Tue Dec 2 13:56:14 PST 2008
2008/12/2 Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net>:
> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 06:28 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> 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.
> Yeah, MIT does seem to be a good plan, at least for the non-spec
> documentation. Alan and Mikhail do mention CC-BY, which might be okay
> for spec docs? Would have to check.
CC-by is a permissive licence for text. To what extent is it
compatible with MIT, in which directions?
c.f. the case of mixing MIT, BSD (in its many variations), similar
permissive licenses ...
How well understood are the implications of MIT as a licence for text?
(c.f. GFDL, which makes less sense the closer you look at it.)
This level of consideration is worthwhile as licences are a hideous
nightmare and getting it right now is vastly superior to getting it
not quite right now and needing to fix it later.
More information about the xorg