-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Edward Peschko wrote:
hey all,
I've been looking (cross-eyed) at the number of different licensing
schemes out there for my wiki (or series of wikis, based off of mediawiki),
and have pretty much narrowed it down to two:
1) GNU Free Documentation License
2) Free BSD Documentation License
My primary intent for my wiki is to use it as a springboard for others
to either cite in publications up-to and/or including text passages,
as long as acknowlegment of this fact is given in the printed or non-printed
work.
Both seem to fit the bill pretty well, but the GNU FDL seems to have a
lot more 'strings attached' which I'm not particularly fond of - but
on the other hand, wikipedia itself uses the GNU FDL, so the following
questions come to mind. If I used the FreeBSD documentation license:
1) would I be able to encorporate GNU FDL content as long as
citations were given?
2) would this prevent said wiki being eventually merged with
mediawiki (under, say wikibooks, or in its own category)?
I see that at 'http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html' they
list the Free BSD license as 'compatible' with the GPL, but I'm
not exactly sure what that means...
Ed
Hello Ed,
MW: MediaWiki is the software and is published under GPL.
WP: WikiPedia is the free encyclopedia project
WM: WikiMedia is a foundation that host several projects (including
WikiPedia).
Now you can use the mediawiki software to publish copyrighted content,
public domain content or whatever content you want to publish :o) My
email client for example probably use a Mozilla / GPL license, yet this
email is not placer under such license.
cheers,
- --
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org
"This signature is a virus. Copy me in yours to spread it."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB2kPjpmyHQ2O4INERAqCqAJ0beKiDJCzU+amfEBkzwRWdzKa0eACgr5Fm
vHkFsH2WaS0H6R523qv1GxQ=
=2/ti
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----