That is what I am doing. Dougal described it exactly. If you still don't get it, think of it this way. I am separately publishing whatever I contribute as GPL and also as CC-By-SA. Meaning that if you want to use it on a GPL licensed site, you can; as well as on a CC-By-SA licensed site. <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Dougal Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dougal@gunters.org">dougal@gunters.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Jun 10 2010 2:04 AM, Gooitzen van der Ent wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); 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>
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?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Multiple licensing can be a sticky thing. But it's moderately common. As an example sometimes seen in software, a developer might dual-license a library as GPL and also under a commercial license. Users can use the software under the GPL, and accept the responsibilities of that license. But a corporate entity might choose to purchase the code under the commercial license, because then they won't be required to GPL any of their *own* code when they incorporate the library into their own projects.<br>
<br>
I can see dual licensing something as GPL and CC-By-SA for similar reasons. In the case of documentation, a publisher might not want to include GPL'd content, because it would require them to license the entire book under GPL (or a compatible license). But they could choose the CC-By-SA license, as long as they give attribution to the original author.<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Dougal Campbell <<a href="mailto:dougal@gunters.org" target="_blank">dougal@gunters.org</a>><br>
<a href="http://dougal.gunters.org/" target="_blank">http://dougal.gunters.org/</a><br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/dougal" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/dougal</a><br>
<a href="http://twitual.com/" target="_blank">http://twitual.com/</a></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><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>