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

[Alex Günsche]

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 23:56 -0500, Kaf Oseo wrote:
> http://at.or.at/hans/blog/2007/01/14/problems-with-cc-attribution-clauses/
> 
> ever been clarified? Seems important, especially since CC-BY-SA is being 
> recommended as the replacement to GPL.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any more recent documents than the
ones in that article. But I also agree now that GPL and CC-BY-SA are
legally incompatible. Therefore, the option of a license migration seems
no longer to be a good idea to me, I rather opt for a dual-licensing
solution.

> Attribution on a "document" such 
> as the Codex could definitely be unwieldy under CC-BY-SA, considering 
> the numerous (and often untraceable) authors involved in the work.

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)). And as for the CC
attribution, I already proposed in a previous e-mail a way to do this
for the Codex without requiring to list every single contributor.

Best regards,
Alex

-- 
Alex Günsche, Zirona OpenSource-Consulting
Blogs: http://www.zirona.com/ | http://www.regularimpressions.net
*** Want to test the shiny new release of InstantUpgrade? ***
http://www.zirona.com/blog/software/instantupgrade-10-beta/