[freeroleplay] Re: Generics
- From: Per Inge Mathisen <pim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:52:02 +0000 (GMT)
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > In the draft, they have introduced a way to mix different CC licenses. You
> > can add any license restriction that exists within the CC domain to any
> > existing CC license. So eg any CC SA (share-alike) content can be
> > relicensed as CC SA+NC (non-commercial), which in my view totally defeats
> > the entire point of making it CC SA in the first place.
>
> That is a serious issue indeed. Do you have any links to places where this
> is being discussed? I'd like to learn more.
http://creativecommons.org/drafts/license2.0
and
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-January/000300.html
> > The GPL is not an option, as I am working on a software library for
> > Generics which is LGPL, and I do not want questions raised on that point.
> > Licensing a text under LGPL strikesme as rather odd (dynamically linking
> > text to other texts? ehhhm).
...
> Another alternative would be to license your document under the FDL/GPL and
> publish the code seperately under the LGPL.
The problem with that is: If person A publishes new content under the FDL,
say a new spell system, then one cannot take this content and implement it
in software under the LGPL without first asking his permission. It also
goes the other way - if someone writes, say, a new spell system in
software under the LGPL, it cannot be copied without further ado into FDL
content. So there could quickly become a significant incompatibility
between the open content version and the open source version.
Perhaps additional licenses like "You may implement any part of this
content as software code under the GNU Lesser General Public License
(LGPL)" for content and "You may convert any part of this code to open
content under the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL)" for software would
do the trick.
- Per
Other related posts:
