Karanbir Singh wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote: > >I really do mislike the FDL for a wiki - it's much too complicated. It > >may be great for longer pieces of Documentation, but there's too much > >legalese in there. > > > >Seen from that standpoint the CC licenses are much saner and easier to > >comprehend. > > i've tried to quickly skim through some of these .... > ... and have no clue which way to swing on this. > > we might need to call in the cavalry on this one :) The problem I see is: We're already letting those people who want to add to the wiki jump through several hoops (how did it feel, guys?). If we now require them to also agree to a license, I'd like to keep that license as clean (and lean) as possible. And in my opinion the CC licenses are much easier to understand. The FDL also has different subparts available - which of those would you choose? The "invariable parts" stuff has led some projects to view the FDL as a non-free license (AFAIR debian had a problem there). On the other hand the CC licenses are very vague, and the FSF advises you to *not* use these licenses for documentation or software ... Do we have a lawyer in the house? Or someone who at least understands legalese? My english is pretty okay, but legalese is an area which just blows my mind. As said: I'd opt for practicability and understandability. I have nothing political (or anything else) against CC and the FDL. It's just that I don't understand the FDL - and the license someone puts his stuff under in the wiki has to be understood by that person before he can agree. Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 München | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061003/e70de4ff/attachment-0002.sig>