Licencing of Documentation

[Arun Bhanu]

On 23:05 Tue 09 Nov     , Sivan Green wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 20:41 +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 06:17:21PM +0000, Louise McCance-Price wrote:
> > 
> > > I said I'd find out about the licensing of documentation.
> > > It appears the winner is:    GFDL
> > > let me know your thoughts on this.
> > 
> > Two questions:
> >  
> >  1) GFDL documentation cannot currently go into Debian main.  Is there a
> >     reason why GFDL has been chosen even if it has this problem?
> > 
> >  2) (more practical) do we track invariant sections in the wiki, or we
> >     say that wiki pages shouldn't have invariant sections except when
> >     approved by someone/some group?
> 
> I must join enrico on this, Lulu maybe you have an idea?

How about using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike[1] license?

	[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Cheers,
Arun...