Open Source Content License (OSCL) - Other/Miscellaneous licenses
bruce at perens.com
Tue Apr 1 04:07:33 UTC 2008
Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> Still not clear to me from context whether you are concerned about (a) choice of license for content on your website, (b) choice of license for your mediawiki software, or (c) both.
I think the mediawiki he's talking about is a GPL-ed product owned by
> the obvious choice of licenses would be the GNU Free Documentation License and/or the Creative Commons share-alike family of licenses. Specify these licenses in your contributor's agreement.
Much as I am a fan of FSF, I wouldn't recommend GFDL for new work until
FSF deals with its issues. That could be never, because Richard has
refused to do anything about it so far. The text "You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying
of the copies you make or distribute." is meant to say "no DRM". This is
a noble intent, but the language is so vague that it could apply to file
permissions and login security. The Wikipedia finally had to work out a
migration plan with FSF so that they could switch to a Creative Commons
license. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
But this is getting outside of the scope of this list, isn't it? OSI
does software licenses.
More information about the License-review