[FM Discuss] License question

[Rob Myers]

On 17/04/11 21:11, Walter van Holst wrote:
> On 4/17/11 10:07 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 17/04/11 20:51, helen varley jamieson wrote:
>>>
>>> surely the fact that a variety of CC licence options exist is a good
>>> enough reason to make them available?
>>
>> But most of them aren't free/open licences, so that's a good reason to
>> not make them available.
> 
> Only the ND and NC ones aren't, 

Yes, that's most of them. :-)

Free: BY BY-SA
NonFree: BY-NC BY-ND BY-NC-ND BY-NC-SA

> I can see a reason for not making them
> available. The normal BY and SA variants are free/open, so why not make
> those available?

FLOSS Manuals standardized on the GPL (except for Digital Foundations,
which I must nag someone about again soon... ;-) )

This used to be explained here:
http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange

But that's now gone, and all the internet archive has is:

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090130022402/http://en.flossmanuals.net/news

"License Change
FLOSS Manuals is changing the license of all material in the repository
from the Free Documentation License to the GPL. Why? Well...the issue of
licenses and documentation is a frustrating road to travel. There are
many 'free licenses' in the world, but none of them work well as
documentation licenses if you have the following prerequisites:
compatability with the GPL ease of ..."

- Rob.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20110417/93b9762d/attachment.pgp>