Anonymous user
User talk:Shlomif: Difference between revisions
→Licenses: Thanks.
(Licenses.) |
(→Licenses: Thanks.) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 6:
HI, I noticed that code you [[Fibonacci_sequence#Iterative_31|submitted]] had a comment about it being released under an MIT license. That is different than the sites GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2. that items are assumed to be released under when poosted to RC (assuming it's all your own work).
Could you possibly remove the MIT comment on the code for RC to show that the RC version complies with the RC guidelines? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
:The code was placed under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License MIT/X11 licence] on purpose because I feel that the GFDL version 1.2 (which is very restrictive - more than the GPL and that some people have felt is not a truly free licence) is unacceptable for code portions which should be reusable as much as possible, and I think it heavily detracts from the utility of Rosetta Code (whose licence should have been better chosen). The MIT/X11 licence allows for sub-licensing and according to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html it is compatible with the GPL, so it should be OK, but just in case, I am going to relicense the code snippet under a multiple MIT/X11/Public Domain/GPL/GFDL licence in order to please as many people as possible. Best regards [[User:Shlomif|Shlomif]] ([[User talk:Shlomif|talk]]) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks Shlomif. I haven't given as much thought to licenses - I am happy to go along with what is decided, but maybe this will start a debate? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||