[Textbook-l] different open content licenses

[Wouter Vanden Hove]

Op wo 16-07-2003, om 02:46 schreef Daniel Mayer:
> Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> >...
> >I also would like to point out the recent Debian 
> >decision to consider the GFDL as a non-free license. 
> >This has been debated for months on debian-legal. You
> 
> >can read the archives here:
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/
> 
> Side note: They only consider GFDLd text to be
> "non-free" when "Invariant Sections", "Cover Texts",
> "Acknowledgements", and/or "Dedications" (all GFDL
> options) are used. We don't use any of those so our
> text is free content. 

There was talk about moving all FDL-content to non-free or do a
relicensing to GPL. I'm not sure whether they'll go through with that.


> Heh? What is a "machine-readable expression of
> freedom" and why is that an important thing to have? I
> guess I'll have to do some more reading....

Machine-readable means the RDF-code embedded in the html-document. Just
look at the rdf-tags in the html-source at creativecommons.org.
In a later stage they will make a search engine that automatically
returns results restricted to your wanted license type.



Wouter

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/attachments/20030716/e1427f0c/attachment.pgp