Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
→Lincenses more permissive...?: Dual?
m (→Lincenses more permissive...?: I miss always the n in theN) |
(→Lincenses more permissive...?: Dual?) |
||
Line 16:
In other words, can I state in my user page that all my contributions can be considered (for the code part) released under e.g. GPLv3, or to be able to do so, I must before upload the code on my site, and then cite myself from the page where I used that code? --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
: I don't think that GPL v3 qualifies as "more permissive" than the GFDL, in part due to the patent-related clauses, but I suppose I can re-word it as "dual-license", and strike the "less permissive" mention.
: And, yes, GFDL is inappropriate for source code. I very much wish I'd used a Creative Commons license for Rosetta Code when I created it, rather than GFDL, but I wasn't familiar with the incompatibilities of the GFDL and most uses of source code. I don't think I can switch the license now, unless I take advantage of the convert-to-CC window GNU added recently. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||