Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gmartinengo"
(update) |
(update) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Looks like I was wrong: | Looks like I was wrong: | ||
:"You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under '''precisely this License''', with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it." | :"You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under '''precisely this License''', with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it." | ||
| − | The GFDL requires that it be distributed under the GFDL - so it looks like a Cc-by-sa work can be incorporated into a GFDL work but not the other way. Personally - after reading both licensese - the protect about equally - so I don't think it matters. | + | The GFDL requires that it be distributed under the GFDL - so it looks like a Cc-by-sa work can be incorporated into a GFDL work but not the other way. Personally - after reading both licensese - the protect about equally - so I don't think it matters. [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]|<b>[[User talk:Trödel|talk]]</b> 15:54, 12 July 2006 (MDT) |
Revision as of 14:54, 12 July 2006
Are we using Council or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Or both?
Licensing Mormonwiki
I think it is good. What should we do to use it? Also what do you know about creative commons license ?
Giuseppe
- Quickanswer: A creative commons license might be able to be used. My understanding is that it must be either Cc-by-sa, Cc-by, or Cc-sa. Though I think one would want the both the attribution and share alike properties. The other creative commons licenses will not work because they do not allow commercial use. There is some who would like to see the backers of GFDL and CC get together to have a common license or at least make sure they are as compatible as possible.
- More complete answer:
|
The GFDL[1] provides (in part):
Thus to comply with GFDL you have to have a notice in the copyright that the work includes or is derived from, in part, wikipedia, is licensed under the GFDL - and you cn add no other conditions. The creative commons Cc-by-sa[2] license says
As you can see they are very similar in that both require the "distributor/copier" to include a notice it is subject to the license, attribute the source and subject the completed work to a similar license. Generally Creative Commons licenses were intended for pictures, music, etc. (creative works) and the ... after distribute includes all these other types of rights protected under copyright law. GFDL has a history in software and documentation. I'll do some checking to make sure that a "Cc-by-sa" license would be acceptable, if that is a prefered license. |
Trödel|talk 15:49, 12 July 2006 (MDT)
Looks like I was wrong:
- "You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it."
The GFDL requires that it be distributed under the GFDL - so it looks like a Cc-by-sa work can be incorporated into a GFDL work but not the other way. Personally - after reading both licensese - the protect about equally - so I don't think it matters. Trödel|talk 15:54, 12 July 2006 (MDT)
