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

[Wilson, Andrew]

OSCL Steward wrote: 

> 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.

Even FSF, to my knowledge, never uses GPL for any of their
documentation.
Using GPL, or any other SW license, for text strikes me
as not a good idea.  I would suggest the following: using a
designed-for-text license for human-language documents,
such as Creative Commons or GFDL, and a designed-for-code OSI approved
license, such as GPL or BSD, for any computer-language code
examples those documents contain.  Specify the licensing scheme
in the front matter for the document.

IANAL, TINLA.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center