Timeline for AGPLv3 for the code and project in general but CC-BY only for doc strings documentation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2017 at 21:02 | comment | added | user5391 | @apsillers yes, I can do it now because the 100% of content is wrote by me, but if someone contribute then I can't also apply dual license to copyright of other person and I wouldn't like someone can apply CC-BY to source code, I see maybe it's difficult allow CC-BY only to knowledge of documentation to allow someone can write anything re-using it without an less strong software license (and I think for this project is better AGPL than other less strong). I guess anyone can write new work without re-use the documentation content. But I wanted first to check all possible choices. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 19:02 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @JHG Ah, I didn't quite understand. I agree with Philippe (and I guess you do too, since you've accepted the answer!) -- license your complete generated documentation under CC BY; it achieves the same effect, and avoids the confusion of having multiple licenses apply to parts of the same file. You can dual-license your docs under the recipient's choice of AGPL / CC BY if you like. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:59 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 29, 2017 at 18:49 | comment | added | user5391 | @apsillers the compatibility is to add CC-BY 4.0 content to software under GPL (or AGPL), I guessed that answer but the ideas was keep the code with AGPL but allow to use the knowledge from documentation content to make other works like books, because the AGPL is good for software but the knowledge from documentation content is not software itself. Then the idea was allow to anyone to write other documentation based in that knowledge. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 15:57 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | CC-BY 4.0 appears to be AGPL compatible; it is GPL compatible. I agree with you that this is a needlessly complex setup. | |
| Aug 29, 2017 at 14:54 | history | answered | Philippe Ombredanne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |