Anonymous user
Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
GPL licensing IS possible on RC
(→How to switch: attribution at least) |
(GPL licensing IS possible on RC) |
||
Line 29:
:: FWIW I don't have a whole lot of time for programming hobbies these days (hopefully again soon) but personally I'd be happy to declare anything I, personally, posted here as CC-Attr and leave it at that. And, really, PD would be fine with me - if I didn't want people to use my code, why would I put it on a website that is all about "how to do certain things in a certain language"?. Quite frankly I doubt the sincerity (or sanity) of anybody who puts code world-visible on the internet but then declares they don't want it to spread... Maybe a quick email dashed off to everybody who has contributed and in the best case they all simply agree on a CC-Attr type license and it'll all be really painless...[[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
::: To me (and as long as I can understand legal matters) PD is not acceptable (for "useful" code which is a little beyond the "learning the basic" of a language). I am happy with the idea something I've written can be used by someone else, even to earn moneys; I am not happy with the idea that they can "take" the work as if it were all their own work (maybe PD does not allow this, since the material must remain in the Public Domain... but PD is a rather foggy definition, and the fog density changes from country to country). So a CC or similar with attribution is, to me, the minimal acceptable license. It could be relaxed for "teaching code" (where maybe PD is the best indeed), but I think raising too many exceptions can confuse, and exceptions are needed for some code that "teachs" (everything can) in the RC spirit, but it is also ''original'' and ''useful'' outside the "teaching scope". I think attribution does not harm, and it is reasonable for "publically available" material. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 10:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
== GPL ==
The copyright page tells one can not provide GPL contents on RC, because the FDL is not compatible with the GPL. This is partially true, and also partially false, because in fact it is more complex than this. In fact it is true if one wishes that both of these licenses apply at the same time on the same content (an '''and''' basis), but it is right possible for an RC contributor to write on his page that the content that he provides can be used under GNU/FDL '''or''' GNU/GPL. On an '''or''' basis, the statements of the 2 licenses don't apply at the same time and don't interact with opposite statements. As an example of this there are several libraries available on the web which can be used under the GPL '''or''' a propriatary license (which you buy). In these cases the GPL and the propriatary license are not compatible and are not applied both at the same time on an '''and''' basis. --[[User:Blue Prawn|Blue Prawn]] 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This said, IMO any '''and''' licensing should be prohibited on RC because this makes it very difficult to respect for people willing to reuse contents. --[[User:Blue Prawn|Blue Prawn]] 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
| |||