On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Daniel Bartholomew <dbart@askmonty.org> wrote:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
This is the license used by Wikipedia and the share-alike part of the license ensures that the content remains open. It's a common license and is well understood and liked by a lot of people.
Henrik mentioned the problem of attribution with CC licenses, but I don't think this is an issue with the mediawiki software we're using because of the edit histories and edit summaries, both of which fulfill this requirement. For example, the history page for the PBXT entry in the manual attributes me and Paul McCullagh for our contributions to the article:
http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php?title=Manual:PBXT_storage_engine&action=history
But imagine a day when we have some software other than mediawiki for this? (Maybe metadata is ported?) Imagine you wanting to publish a book of the MariaDB manual, the attribution section would make for some interesting read. I am curious how Wikipedia does this? Potentially they'll publish themselves on a CD one day? I knew they were contemplating to change, but didn't notice it happening. What were the arguments in favor?
I don't have much experience with the FDL, so if someone has reasons why we should use it, please share.
In copyleft documentation licenses... there aren't that many to choose from :-( henrik -- email: henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi tel: +358-40-5697354 www: www.avoinelama.fi/~hingo book: www.openlife.cc