GPL sounds like an overly restrictive license for every script though (especially little cookbook scripts). What about a choice of GPL, LGPL, BSD and zlib licenses?<br><br>Joe<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Matt Ebb <<a href="mailto:matt@mke3.net">matt@mke3.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:53 AM, joe <<a href="mailto:joeedh@gmail.com">joeedh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hrm. You could try contacting some admins. We went with OCL because the<br>
> manual is OCL, and it seemed to make sense (as back then the wiki was<br>
> primarily for user documentation/developer documents).<br>
<br>
</div>Right, it was all about the old 2.3 manual, which was OCL. Anyway, is<br>
there any reason at all why the contents of the entire wiki must be<br>
licensed the same? Why not just state: 'open content, unless otherwise<br>
stated on the page itself' or even something more restrictive like:<br>
'open content, unless otherwise declared as GPL on the page itself' or<br>
'open content, with the exception of GPL for all contained<br>
program/script code'<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Matt<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-docboard mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>