Open Source Content License (OSCL) - Other/Miscellaneous licenses

[OSCL Steward]

Yes this is getting outside if the scope of this list.  The content of my
wiki will be mostly source code but since there is some text I don't know of
a license that would fully protect all the content.  I would think you could
apply a software license to text and just conceder any terms specific to
software N/A.  But then I've heard of problems with GPL license and the
protection afforded to authors in it specifically with patents, though I'm
not sure of the whole story there.

That said, I think the best option is a way to let the original author of
the page choose from a list of licenses, then show icon(s) for each license
they choose to license their content under.  This of course works on my
earlier assumption that you could apply a software license to text and just
conceder any terms specific to software N/A.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Perens [mailto:bruce at perens.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:08 PM
To: Wilson, Andrew
Cc: OSCL Steward; license-review at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Open Source Content License (OSCL) - Other/Miscellaneous
licenses

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 
Wikimedia Foundation.
> 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.

    Thanks

    Bruce