2006/5/2, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com:
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are themselves under an ND license.
The GFDL is a legal document which is essential to the operation of the site. Similarly, the Creative Commons logos are non-free, trademarked and coyprighted symbols used to identify Creative Commons texts. We use these documents and buttons where we need them, e.g., the logos are allowed to stay on Wikimedia Commons even though they are non-free.
If Wikisource allows other licenses than the GFDL, it should also host their license texts, no matter what terms they are available under. That is a matter of common sense.
But might it not be a good idea to have the text of a license like the GPL even if we don't have any material under it? Would not that be well under the purpose of Wikisource?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels