[Fwd: [ubuntu]dual license strategy: GFDL&CC-BY-SA]

[Corey Burger]

On 8/2/06, Matthew East <mdke at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi there,
>
> This is an interesting question so I'm forwarding it to the
> documentation team mailing list and Mako, who likes these things.
>
> My initial instinct is that the website that you found is saying that if
> a work is licensed under the cc-by-sa license, a subsequent derivative
> work cannot be licensed under the gfdl. However the dual licensing
> strategy may have been originally intended to avoid exactly that
> concern, I wasn't around when that decision was taken.
>
> I'm not really familiar with the concept of "dual licensing", and I find
> it slightly hard to understand that on our documents it is said that
> derivative works can use one *or* the other license.
>
> It may be an appropriate time to have a second think about our licensing
> policy.
>
> Matt

Ah yes, the great dual licensing debate. Given I was there talking
with Mako when this was decided at Mataro, I will weigh in on this.
Basically it boils down to Debian. Either license is acceptable for us
(Ubuntu) but we wanted Debian to be able to use our stuff at some
point as well. However, neither the GFDL nor the CC-by-sa 2.0 are
currently acceptable. Thus we put them under both, so if one becomes
acceptable, Debian can accept it under that license.

Mako, did I miss anything?

Cheers,

Corey