[GNUz] Fwd: Academics Discuss MS vs. OSS

[Richard Tindall]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

Nick Rout wrote:

>By definition the license cannot prevent the copyright holder from
>granting other licenses. 
>
>That particular term of the CC license is saying "if you distribute this
>work under this license you must use the same license and say so". Thats
>what the "share-alike" part of "share-alike-attribution" means. It means
>"if you share it, you must do so on the same terms that I do".
>
><snip> including the right to license
>it on other terms, sell it, attribute it to his dog, whatever!
>  
>
Might be a good move! Even better, the next-door neighbour's dog. ;-)

>Oh and BTW AFAIK the CLUG wiki is under version 2.0 of the CC-SA
>license, not version 2.5.
>

I noticed that too, but assumed we'd be going to the newer version 
eventually.

So the exclusion is against bringing work into the Wiki that has come 
from a GFDL'd source - e.g. from Wikipedia:

*"You* must ensure that the work you contribute to this site is valid 
under this license. Basically, this means that :-

    * either You own original copyright in the work
    * or The work you are contributing is in "the public domain"
    * or The work you are contributing is licensed under compatible
      terms (this excludes the GNU FDL, unfortunately)"

- unless "You own original copyright in the work".  
http://clug.net.nz/index.php/CLUGWebsiteLicense

So, it would be ok for anyone to publish any new material they write, 
both on the Wiki & under the GFDL.

IANAL, but the penny has finally dropped. :-)

Thanks, Rik

-- 
Richard Tindall, InfoHelp Services <http://www.infohelp.co.nz>