Anonymous user
Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
→Lincenses more permissive...?: new section
(indemnity clause?) |
(→Lincenses more permissive...?: new section) |
||
Line 10:
Should there be a "not suitable for any purpose; use at own risk" clause, considering the wide range of programming abilities represented here? There is not even any guarantee that examples here been compiled, run or tested. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 14:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
== Lincenses more permissive...? ==
In the section '''Contributors''' it is stated <cite>You own license to your changes</cite>; then it is said <cite>If you wish to license your contributions under terms more permissive than the GNU FDL</cite>... at FSF they suggest not to use the GNU FDL for code (as noted also here, GNU FDL and GPL are not really compatible); then in the '''Citations''' it is written to cite the source in case the original is licensed even under any copyleft license, e.g. GPLv2/3. I interpret this with the fact that RosettaCode can contain e.g. GNU GPLed code, taken from "outside", if cited... '''But'''... can RC contains GNU GPLed code "from inside" without citation?!
In other words, can I state in my user page that all my contributions can be considered (for the code part) released under e.g. GPLv3, or to be able to do so, I must before upload the code on my site, and the cite myself from the page where I used that code? --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||