RE: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Parker, Ron]

> From: Mikhael Goikhman [mailto:address@hidden

> Is not FDL intended more for physical books and other 
> tangible property,
> than for intangible software documentation like man pages or README's?
> My understanding is that FSF always stated clearly, GPL is 
> more than fine
> for everything to which the "source" meaning may be applied.
> 
> I fail to understand why people use FDL as an example against GPL v2+.
> This is bogus. GNU FDL is designed for adoption by commercial 
> publishers.
> Surely, GPL and FDL are two different licenses, use the most 
> appropriate
> for you. If you don't write and sell books, GPL v2+ is more 
> appropriate.

Unless I am misreading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#OtherWorks

In seems that "[f]or other kinds of works, (the FSF) recommend(s) you
consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons."  While, I've not
personally reviewed there licenses, I have seen than many pro-FSF
individuals have used one of them for their blog, website, wiki, etc.

Of course that doesn't address the legal requirements for actually being
able to change the Wiki license.  I leave that as an exercise for the
reader. :-)

Actually I suppose that one option would be to move the current wiki to a
archival location making it read-only and to then start over.  Individual
authors could re-contribute their information under the selected license on
the current (new) wiki.  Of course it would be improper for a contributor to
copy content from the archival site, which they had not personally authored,
but I think it would be permissible to link to the old wiki.