Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote: > On 15.07.20 08:36, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Zelphir Kaltstahl writes: >>>> First at foremost, the list _itself_ has to be licensed as a free documentation. FWIW, most of ‘awesome lists’ are under CC0. >>> While the list is not CC0, I meant to put it under "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3", which I think should be appropriate (Is it not?) and free as in freedom. Good that you hint at the license, because I thought it had a license already. >> GFDL isn’t considered as free by the debian standards, because it can have invariant sections. CC by-sa might be a good fit, since it is compatible with GPLv3 and wikipedia at the same time. > > I just read multiple articles about GFDL and CC0 and still don't know what the better choice is for the list. Sometimes itʼs better to read a text itself than multiple texts about text. ;-) As least FSF have always tried to keep their licences in English, not legalese. Doing it, you would find out right away, than GNU FDL is a licence for “manuals, textbooks, or other functional and useful documents”; and most of it is about things like ‘Front Cover’, ‘Back Cover’, ‘Title Page’, ‘Dedications’, ‘Endorsements’, etc, and what one have to do when printing 101+ copies. What is not written in it, though, is the fact itʼs _not_ compatible with any version of GNU GPL. > In particular I do not find information about whether CC0 is copyleft or not (1) Quoth (emphasis mine): | A work released under CC0 is dedicated to the public domain to the fullest extent permitted by law. If that is not possible for any reason, CC0 also provides a *lax, permissive* license as a fallback. Both public domain works and the lax license provided by CC0 are compatible with the GNU GPL. | | If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. Besides being GPL-compatible, itʼs FDL-compatible as well, while CC BY-SA is not.