[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A licence for an ‘awesome list’ (was: Starting a GNU Guile awesome l

From: Dmitry Alexandrov
Subject: Re: A licence for an ‘awesome list’ (was: Starting a GNU Guile awesome list)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:18:23 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Zelphir Kaltstahl <> wrote:
> On 15.07.20 08:36, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> Zelphir Kaltstahl <> writes:
>>>> First at foremost, the list _itself_ has to be licensed as a free 
>>>> documentation.  FWIW, most of ‘awesome lists’ are under CC0.
>>> While the list is not CC0, I meant to put it under "GNU Free Documentation 
>>> License v1.3", which I think should be appropriate (Is it not?) and free as 
>>> in freedom. Good that you hint at the license, because I thought it had a 
>>> license already.
>> GFDL isn’t considered as free by the debian standards, because it can have 
>> invariant sections. CC by-sa might be a good fit, since it is compatible 
>> with GPLv3 and wikipedia at the same time.
> I just read multiple articles about GFDL and CC0 and still don't know what 
> the better choice is for the list.

Sometimes itʼs better to read a text itself than multiple texts about text. ;-) 
 As least FSF have always tried to keep their licences in English, not legalese.

Doing it, you would find out right away, than GNU FDL is a licence for 
“manuals, textbooks, or other functional and useful documents”; and most of it 
is about things like ‘Front Cover’, ‘Back Cover’, ‘Title Page’, ‘Dedications’, 
‘Endorsements’, etc, and what one have to do when printing 101+ copies.

What is not written in it, though, is the fact itʼs _not_ compatible with any 
version of GNU GPL.

> In particular I do not find information about whether CC0 is copyleft or not 
> (1)

Quoth <> (emphasis mine):
| A work released under CC0 is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest 
extent permitted by law. If that is not possible for any reason, CC0 also 
provides a *lax, permissive* license as a fallback. Both public domain works 
and the lax license provided by CC0 are compatible with the GNU GPL.
| If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we 
recommend you use CC0.

Besides being GPL-compatible, itʼs FDL-compatible as well, while CC BY-SA is 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]