On 17/02/2009, morenisco at cdsl.cl <morenisco at cdsl.cl> wrote: > > Dag Wieers wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > [...] > > >> If you put a *HEADER* on your page which states that *this* one document > >> is licensed under the GDFL and *NOT* under a CC license, I am *not* > >> happy with that, but I think it could work. > >> > >> Anyone having a problem with that? > > > > Yes, I prefer not to have content with different licenses because it may > > become a management nightmare at some point. Especially if content is > > being merged at some point or being rewritten. > > > > There is an advantage in keeping things simple. > > > > Why is the CC license not sufficient ? Why does the author not want to > > dual-license or relicense his content ? > > Because I prefer GFDL. I prefer and I want give all the rights over the > document, instead start providing some rights. I feel more confortable and > overall free with GFDL. > > Anyway, I'm not sure to publish more documents in the CentOS wiki, this is > not being a good experience for me. Is difficult to publish documentation > here. And after have explained what and where I want to contribute, I was > almost forced to re-licence or change the licence of my documentation (and > you didn't think that someone could want to keep his freedom and publish > his documentation with the original licence that he choose?). The rules apply to everyone. Why should *you* be an exception? If the clearly defined rules are not adhered to, or enforced, then anarchy prevails. I am sorry to hear that you have misunderstood the purpose of the CentOS Wiki. It does not exist to provide a means for persons to publish their own copyrighted material for global access via the Internet but to provide information, advice, hints, etc, to users of CentOS. Alan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20090217/ca4e2397/attachment-0004.html>