[wp-docs] Codex license: CC better than GPL?
lloydomattic at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 19:22:00 GMT 2008
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Alex Günsche <ag.ml2008 at zirona.com> wrote:
> I agree that Public Domain is very open and flexible, but you won't find
> too many people who are willing to provide their work PD. ;)
I don't think that is necessarily true, but that raises the most
interesting questions to consider any changes. How many authors are
there of the codex, and do a reasonable number of authors represent
almost all of the work.
> Besides, PD
> is not legally possible in a number of jurisdictions, including Germany
> and France. However, MIT or BSD license are also good choices, similar
> to PD.
There are ways around that in each of those jurisdictions. I believe
either creativecommons.org have completed work in this area, or are
currently working on it.
> (By the way, I wasn't able to find out whether WordPress itself is
> licensed "GPLv2 only" or "GPLv2 or later". The readme.html only says:
> "WordPress is released under the GPL (see license.txt)", and license.txt
> is the GPL v2. I wonder if this is intentional, or Matt just forgot to
> include the precise statement.)
WordPress is licensed GPL version 2, because as you say the license
doesnt' have a or later clause.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Alex Günsche <ag.ml2008 at zirona.com> wrote:
> Not necessarily. First, the GPL also requires you to give detailed
> attribution to contributions and modifications ("You must cause the
> modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the
> files and the date of any change.", GPLv2, 1 a)
GPL is a license of sources, whereas as, as I suggested, CC licenses
depending on how the attribution is required impacts the experience of
the derivative work.
Dual licensing seems like a pretty good compromise, but it is hard for
me to get excited about this type of discussion, because any
resolution is very labor intensive,
More information about the wp-docs