[FM Discuss] license thread

[simon yuill]

I am in agreement with Julian on this, I feel one license backed up with
clear reasons for its use would be the best approach.

best wishes
Si


Julian Oliver wrote:
> ..on or around Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:47:23PM +1000, Brianna Laugher said:
>   
>> On 03/09/07, adam hyde <adam at flossmanuals.net> wrote:
>>     
>>> sophea suggested putting all material into the Public Domain...any
>>> thoughts on that?
>>>       
>
> there's little incentive for people to produce with the Public Domain as 
> there's no refined legal context for protecting and defending copyright 
> (should it come into question).
>
>   
>> Bad idea! Force others to keep the works free: use a license with a
>> copyleft/sharealike clause.
>>     
>
> i feel the GPL is great to these ends, but you've heard me say that already.
>
> it's better to be safe than sorry in the interim IMHO. the GPL is verbose and
> restrictive but in such a way as it works well to protect author rights 
> while encouraging safe re-distribution and downstream modification.
>
> as an aside (and without wanting to be pedantic) i reckon it's a good idea 
> to get away from the term 'CopyLeft' when promoting and distributing FLOSSManuals.
>
> 'CopyLeft' is a terribly confusing term for people new to distribution friendly
> copyright licensing. in fact, i think it's a real barrier to the wider adoption 
> of so called 'copyleft licenses'.
>
> i've met a few people that thought anything released under a so-called 
> 'copyleft license' was free of copyright, as to them anything 'CopyLeft' 
> must mean "the opposite of CopyRight".
>
> out of interest it seems that even the CC webpage no-longer uses the term..
>
> julian
>
>