Re: [Orgmode] What license for Worg?

[David Maus]

Bastien wrote:
>Hi Tycho,

>tycho garen <address@hidden> writes:

>> This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is
>> that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm
>> not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but
>> it's worth considering.

>Mhh.. yes, you're right.

>> My impulse for free-software-style writing projects is to use the
>> emacs wiki license statement which says CC-BY-SA/GFDL/GPL 3 or later
>> (with a clarification of what constitutes "corresponding source
>> code"), but that might be a bit vague in some cases.

>Here is what I read at the bottom of every emacswiki.org page:

>  This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public
>  License. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work under any
>  other license that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or
>  distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction
>  that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the
>  same restriction. For example, you may choose to receive this work
>  under the GNU Free Documentation License, the CreativeCommons
>  ShareAlike License, the XEmacs manual license, or similar licenses.

>So this is GPLv2.  Any idea why this isn't GPLv3?

>Also, I find the formulation a bit confusing.  Is it the standard
>formulation when multi-licensing?  Where can I found an example of a
>clear multi-licensing statement?

IIRC there was some back and forth about compatibility of this
statement and the GPL, but cannot remember where I read this.  This is
obvious, but why not just drop a message to FSF legal team with the
question about this issue?  After all, Org mode is part of Gnu Emacs
and Worg is Org's community page.

Best,
  -- David
--
OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6
Jabber.... address@hidden
Email..... address@hidden

pgpoYjlPqo9Lu.pgp
Description: PGP signature