On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > morenisco at cdsl.cl wrote: >> Well Ralph, anyway, If I paste the 20 pages on the wiki, I will have the >> problem with the licence. I want to be free to licence my documentation >> with GFDL or another that could be enought free for me. And put pressure >> for just one licence to use is not something that you could consider a >> free act. > 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? well, actually, yes, I do I want a pony, but CentOS is not going to provide me with one, it seems. Beer seems to still require that I pay for it at the local corner saloon. The first poster is conflating fiscally free, and software Libre concepts. So far as I can tell, there is an functionally infinitely large webspace for published content, and Google can be induced to index it with minimal attention to detail. If it resides in ** CentOS provided ** namespace, I _do_ expect it to be licensed generally, and not full of local exceptions (which impair reproduceability, as in a 'best of' volume), and are subject to unfixable entropy as a 'consent' for a change cannot be found when the original author has evaporated. Why buy potential a copyright squabble HERE if we don't need to? The header/footer addendum on the doco we re-publish under such limitations from upstream are U_G_L_Y, but such local carveouts seem to provoke such a response to 'be careful'. The CentOS trademark is ours, the copyright is of the project, and admixing the copyrights of others is a recipe for unclarity and trouble. Also, we have the problem of orphaned pages already [and I correct or kill them when seen] and there is NO good reason I can see, from a CentOS point of view, to compound the matter with local copyright carveouts. I would rather do without yet another redundant article, that carries such thorns. -- Russ herrold
