I am releasing it under both licences, to facilitate changing it, and what not. GPL is a software licence, and CC-By-SA is a generic license (sort of), more documentation oriented. I would require everyone to release it under CC-By-SA if I had my way. And no, there are no limitations to releasing something under two licences. It is GPL <b>OR</b> CC-By-SA, not AND. You can use either.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Gooitzen van der Ent <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:contact@ecodelphinus.com">contact@ecodelphinus.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If you want to license content about WordPress under a CC-By-SA license, then you should post it on your own site, not on the Codex, as the two licenses are not compatible, since they say inherently different things.<br>
Jane <br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
This is an interesting point. If you write content on WordPress which is GPL licensed, why would you then use CC-By-SA. Surely there would be limitations? Depends on the type of content possibly?<div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
On 06/09/2010 05:45 PM, Jane Wells wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 6/9/10 6:40 PM, Arlen Beiler wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
How are they incompatible? I read the two over briefly, and it didn't seem incompatible, though they easily could be. Could you point me to where you are reading.<br>
<br>
Also, this is a software licence, not a documentation license. The whole licence doesn't make sense from a documentation point of view. I, for one, am releasing all my contributions under GPL, CC-By-SA, and (will maybe) GFDL (just in case). That includes all past contributions. If all the contributors would do the same, or at least GPL and CC-By-SA, it would help quite a bit.<br>
</blockquote>
The issue of why the Codex is GPL is a valid question, and one I am not getting into here.<br>
<br>
What I will get into is that at this time is that right now, the Codex *is* licensed as GPL. That means that CC-by-SA is not compatible, because it requires attribution -- a restriction on how users use the content. If you want to license content about WordPress under a CC-By-SA license, then you should post it on your own site, not on the Codex, as the two licenses are not compatible, since they say inherently different things.<br>
Jane<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
wp-docs mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wp-docs@lists.automattic.com" target="_blank">wp-docs@lists.automattic.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs" target="_blank">http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
wp-docs mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wp-docs@lists.automattic.com" target="_blank">wp-docs@lists.automattic.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs" target="_blank">http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-docs</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>