Licence for the ispCP documentation

[gOOvER]

In the german forum we discuss, under which licence we should publish the ispCP Documentation. We decided, that the whole Community should discuss and vote for one licence. We have the GNU FDL and the CCL.

Link to CCL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

Link to GNU FDL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL

[BeNe]

I closed the Thread in the German Corner and set a link to here.
We should discuss this here in a International language, so that the most member can read/understand/write/vote.

Greez BeNe

[achioo]

Wouldn't the documentation use the same licensing as ispCP since the documentation is with the project and not a seperate project?

[BioALIEN]

I voted for GNU license. From briefly reading the differences between the two licenses, the GNU license made more sense to me in what ispCP is all about. We're all using this software coded freely by the developers. As such, any manuals for this software should also be freely put out to the public to retransform, fork, make derivative works or even sell if they want. So long as they comply with the GNU's license.

[rbtux]

@achioo

within documentation there are not implicitly the same rights and restrictions affected as in software developement. Therefore we should use a license created for specific purpose

[raphael]

as long as no invariant sections are used, I'll use GFDL

[raphael]

why shouldn't a CC license be used? first of all, which one is going to be used? saying 'CCL' doesn't mean anything at all.
If a CC is used please choose BY-SA.

Also note that existing documentation can't be licensed under the one the community decided without the explicit author/s agreement.