Re: [RP] Re: Licensing terms for ratpoison info page

[Joe Corneli]

   > I know tacit assumptions like this are the sorts of things that can
   > get people in trouble, so that's why I wanted to say something
   > explicit on the wiki.  It might not have been quite explicit enough
   > however.

   Ayaayay! You can't do that. I'm changing it back. If we are to have some
   different licensing than that of the FDL, it should say so in
   conjunction with the page editing forms. Also, we would have to collect
   agreements from everyone affected (or at least try).

Well, I would rather like it if the implicit assumptions that lead
to the creation and distribution of the contrib directory were good
enough. But maybe they aren't.  I agree that it would be best to
have the licensing terms stated clearly on the page editing forms.
I also think that it it worth while to try to conform to the
protocol suggested by the FDL.  I really can't imagine that anyone
who's added code to the current RP wiki would object to that code
being licensed under the GNU GPL.  Patches against RP in particular
are 100% dependent on RP, so they need to be GPL themselves by the
"viral clause".  This same thinking doesn't apply to scripts, but
like I said, I don't think anyone will object...

Joe