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. - RF _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
