[wp-docs] Codex license: CC better than GPL?

Alex Günsche ag.ml2008 at zirona.com
Tue Feb 26 12:49:02 GMT 2008

Hi all,

I wonder why the Codex is under the GPL. I know similar questions have
been discussed before on this list. But, as far as I know, the issue GPL
vs. CC has not been discussed. I also know that there are good reasons
for choosing the GPL, e.g. to be license-compliant with WP itself.

Anyway, I think that a code license such as the GPL is not well-suited
for documentary work. (I think this is obvious enough, so I don't
explain it further. But of course, we can discuss this. There are also
many related discussions to be found on the web.)

In my opinion, the CC-BY-SA license is equivalent to the intention of
the GPL, and it's a much better, because more precise and specific
license for a work such as the WP Codex.

Therefore, I'm proposing to relicense the Codex to the CC-BY-SA. Of
course, one cannot simply relicense other people's work. All
contributors of non-trivial content would have to agree, and the content
of those who didn't agree, would have to be removed.

Still, I think this is possible. Wikipedia itself had a similar problem
when they realized that they are stuck with the GFDL. And as far as I
know, Wikimedia has been able to perform a license update, despite the
fact that Wikipedia has *many* more contributors than the WP codex.


What do you think, especially the main contributors?

NB: I'm not a lawyer, and although I'm quite familiar with copyright
legislations, I'm not at all an expert.

By the way, you might wonder why I'm proposing this; the reason is that
we are currently working on a new German documentation, and the GPL is
very bad to handle questions like translatabilty, or compatibility with
documentary work in other legislations than the US.

Best regards,

Alex Günsche, Zirona OpenSource-Consulting
Blogs: http://www.zirona.com/ | http://www.regularimpressions.net
*** Want to test the shiny new release of InstantUpgrade? ***

More information about the wp-docs mailing list