On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:50:07AM -0500, inode0 wrote:
> While not as common, something like the GNU All-Permissive License
> seems like it might match your stated goals better in this case and is
> really quite similar in spirit to the MIT License selected for code.
> It isn't really a general content license but is intended for what is
> commonly understood to be documentation included with code.
I think we considered that one briefly, and it's worth considering
again. The only drawback is that it is not a well-known and
widely-used license like the MIT license (the modern variant) is, or
like CC-BY-SA is. It would avoid the possible problem you have pointed
to.
There's also an argument that the Creative Commons licenses are better
for some kinds of creative content because they explicitly talk about
public display and public performance rights, but perhaps that's more
of a theoretical benefit in this context.
In all the cases where the content is not bundled with code I think
the CC-BY-SA license is a superb choice, so I did not mean to suggest
swapping it for the permissive license I mentioned except possibly in
the case of bundling with code already covered by a different copyleft
license. The MIT license used for code could also be used in such
cases without problems I believe (and that would be the default if all
such bundlings are defined as code by the FPCA which I'm just too
dense to discern).
I am happy to leave that in the capable hands sorting through these issues now.
Thanks,
John