[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wordlist in Wiktionary
- To: Documentation and Translation <doc at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: Wordlist in Wiktionary
- From: Isam Bayazidi <ibayazidi at gmail dot com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:23:01 +0300
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=VEVUQ+Qplh3ZkR2EOeBFdUxJ86CdeIGEKJLeCnUyXerr/8cts2COgF+tkJQP1Gobit5Fta8RyvPehUnNX3E9kKm1dnKXGTDKZcpHItOap/1/XDhB3Ig1vcXj/YHh13yYfAILiYaWcxT2iqmJ6oUAhRqI2Wj+Zg2FhCyszay6mBg=
As I heard from the Wikimedia Lawyer, reason they are incompatible is
that none of the 2 licences said that you could take something that is
under it, and put it in the other license. So nothing in the GPL text
says that you can use the GPL material under FDL, and so it is
incompatible. But knowing that the source of the FDL is the same source
of the GPL, the fears about "what will we loose" shouldn't prety much
exist.
One thing to put in mind is that the GPL was made with the Programmer
in mind, while the the FDL was made with the Author/writer in mind.. so
the FDL addresses issues that the GPL didn't cover such as making a
print versoin of the work, and the credit to author(s) and so on..
I don't think that the license of the Wordlist should change, but what
I am hoping for is a permission to use it under FDL.. let Wordlist
continue as you see fit, or double license it.. after all what matters
the most is to have the effort utilized while maintaining the freedom
of Free Software. And this is what FDL is about when it comes to
documentation, as GPL is for code
On 8/6/05, Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com> wrote:
--- Isam Bayazidi <ibayazidi at gmail dot com> wrote:
> Well.. basically they are 2 different licenses, and it isn't possible to
> have the GPL Wordlist put into the GFDL Wiktionary because the 2 licenses do
> not allow freely re licencing or moving the content between the different
> licenses, approval from authors or the copyright holder is a must.
That not withstanding, what are the differences which makes they
"incompatible" and what are some of their drawbacks - in other
words what is it that you gain/lose with one vs. the other ? As
noted, I read (via google) all sorts of opinions and wanted to hear
what people on this list think and what the Wikipedia crowd believes.
Simply put - what would we lose if this GPL license became GFDL for
the sake of argument ? M.Sameer ?
Salam.
- Nadim
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
Doc mailing list
Doc at arabeyes dot org
http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/doc
--
Yours,
Isam Bayazidi