[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing
From: |
Vagrant Cascadian |
Subject: |
Re: Clarifying blog post licensing |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:57:50 -0800 |
On 2022-01-26, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> With a few exceptions, our blog posts do not have a license, which is
> not great as it prevents sharing and reuse, at least by those outside
> Guix circles (we discussed it in the past but never got around to fixing
> it).
>
> I’d like us to clarify that, with a footer on blog posts saying that,
> unless otherwise stated, posts are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and
> GFDL 1.3+ (the latter so we can reuse material in the cookbook and in
> the manual). Patch below.
Just for clarity, do you mean the GFDL with a laundry-list of non-free
anti-features excluded, like the guix manual:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
Without that, I'm not sure you can actually include it in the guix
manual (other than, perhaps, by using CC-BY-SA 4.0, maybe)...
live well,
vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Clarifying blog post licensing, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/01/26
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, Manolis Ragkousis, 2022/01/26
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, Efraim Flashner, 2022/01/26
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, Julien Lepiller, 2022/01/26
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, Ricardo Wurmus, 2022/01/26
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, Maxim Cournoyer, 2022/01/26
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2022/01/26
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing,
Vagrant Cascadian <=
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2022/01/27
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz), 2022/01/27
- Re: Clarifying blog post licensing, jbranso, 2022/01/29