[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

[Andre Engels]

2006/5/2, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com>:
> On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at 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 at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels