KDE Wiki Sandbox talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Not necessarily. In fact, AFAIK we shouldn't. The GFDL requires that you included a copy of the complete license in what you're distributing. And that's what we have here. The CC requires that you link to the appropriate Commons Deed on their site. --[[User:Jucato|Jucato]] | ::Not necessarily. In fact, AFAIK we shouldn't. The GFDL requires that you included a copy of the complete license in what you're distributing. And that's what we have here. The CC requires that you link to the appropriate Commons Deed on their site. --[[User:Jucato|Jucato]] | ||
As far as I know, GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms not compatible with] the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, so maybe we should change it to version 1.3.--[[User:Qiii2006|Qiii2006]] 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I've asked the eV for advice on this. Ade should know the answer. --[[User:Annew|annew]] 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Non-legal advice, from a developer who has studied the subject for his own use: | |||
::Examples for having the same things under incompatible licenses are: | |||
- Qt - triple LGPL, GPL, commercial | |||
- MySQL - GPL and comercial license | |||
::There are probably many other examples, but I can't think of one at the | |||
moment. | |||
::The multi-licensing system is not 'all rules from all licenses apply' but you | |||
can choose which license suits you. Until I hear to the contrary, we'll leave this alone. Thanks for drawing attention to it, though. --[[User:Annew|annew]] 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:27, 27 January 2010
Should we also display the Creative Commons license? and if so, is the summary sufficient, or should the whole license be displayed?
My preference would be for the summary to be displayed together with a link to the full text. --annew 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. In fact, AFAIK we shouldn't. The GFDL requires that you included a copy of the complete license in what you're distributing. And that's what we have here. The CC requires that you link to the appropriate Commons Deed on their site. --Jucato
As far as I know, GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, so maybe we should change it to version 1.3.--Qiii2006 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked the eV for advice on this. Ade should know the answer. --annew 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Non-legal advice, from a developer who has studied the subject for his own use:
- Examples for having the same things under incompatible licenses are:
- Qt - triple LGPL, GPL, commercial - MySQL - GPL and comercial license
- There are probably many other examples, but I can't think of one at the
moment.
- The multi-licensing system is not 'all rules from all licenses apply' but you
can choose which license suits you. Until I hear to the contrary, we'll leave this alone. Thanks for drawing attention to it, though. --annew 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)