Durval Menezes wrote: > danieldk@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Attribution-ShareAlike is a pretty fine license, in the same spirit as the > > GPL. Though, the GFDL may me a good option too (this is what Wikipedia > > uses): > > > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html > > I say the GFDL is more appropriate, and it's more consistent with the rest > of the CentOS project: a GPL operating system ought to have a GFDL Wiki... 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. Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@xxxxxxxxxxxx | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....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/20061002/b5658c76/attachment.bin
