Hi, the thread discussing licenses for the Wiki content (and maybe for other documentation coming from the CentOS project) somehow slept in during discussion. That's why I want to reopen discussion: So far we found 4 licenses which should be inspected a little bit deeper (pros and cons are from me). This is if we *want* to have the content in the wiki under some form of license. The Creative Commons license which CC suggests for wikis: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/> Pro: Easy to understand, easy to embed. Three-Layer system: Easy user readable license backed by a license for lawyers and a machine readable part (can be searched for by google and yahoo, for example. Available for ~70 different jurisdictions/countries Con: The FSF begs you to stay away from these licenses for documentations GFDL - The GNU Free Documentation License: <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html> Con: It's legalese at its best. I have read it a few times now and still don't understand it. FreeBSD Documentation license <http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html> Pro: Seems fairly easy to understand Con: Seems to be written especially for Documentation in book format. Opencontent license <http://opencontent.org/openpub/> Pro: Seems fairly easy Con: I've never heard of this up until now (which doesn't have to mean anything Are there any people with some law background in the house? Opinions, please. Ralph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061027/326b3b97/signature.bin
