Forum:Is it possible to use GPL instead of GFDL for code snippets?

Is it possible to have code snippets and example programs on a Wikia wiki fall under the GPL instead of the GFDL? The reason I'm asking is that the GPL is more adequately tailored to protecting code, doing a much better job keeping it free, and although some code snippets I might add will be simple enough that I don't mind putting them in the public domain, longer snippets I really wouldn't want to put under the GFDL. 82.139.86.190 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that you cant put GPL code on a GFDL wiki page because licenses are incompatible. We can not neither include GFDL documentation bits inside GPL code.
 * But i'll let others users here confirm that. — TulipVorlax 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like dual licensing might be the best option. That way you can mix the code with GFDL content but still use the code outside the wiki under the GPL. Angela (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can an entire wiki be dual-licensed by default, like what Wikimedia is trying to do? --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 03:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, dual licensing isn't an option, because I explicitly don't want to license them under the GFDL, because that would negate any additional protections the GPL provides. I mentioned that this was only about longer code snippets (I'm happy to put short ones in the public domain); I was thinking more in the direction of linking to a page containing the snippet (with perhaps a few comments and linked images to illustrate what the code does graphically). Would it be possible to use a license tag scheme, where you start a page with a tag saying something like ‘this snippet is not GFDL but GPL’? I know there are good reasons Wikia sticks to the GFDL as the primary license, but I think these are the same reasons you'd want to make using the GPL for code possible. 82.139.86.190 14:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as an afterthought... It may not even be legally possible for me to post some of the material under the GFDL anyway, since parts may be derived from GPL and LGPL sources for which I don't own the original copyright. 82.139.86.190 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been a long and for me a painful problem with the GFDL. I have seen comments posted on the Free Software Foundation website about this very issue, including recommended modification to the GFDL that would attempt to work between the two licenses both drafted by that organization.  The effort to modify the license instead pushed to a merger with the Creative Commons license suite, with this issue left in the dust.... and the GPL isn't compatible with the CC-by-SA license either.
 * One ugly hack of a solution that has been done on sites like Wikibooks has been to host software snippets on Source Forge and have the GFDL'd text referring to the source code on the Wiki. That really doesn't work out too well either.
 * You would think that of any two licenses that ought to be compatible with each other that it would be the GPL and the GFDL. Writing a book or in this case a wiki that does critical analysis of GPL'd or lGPL'd code would appear to be in the best interests of the software developers and generally in the spirit of freedom of software to be able to use the content in a way that promotes good development practices.
 * The other option here is to simply apply the principles of fair-use. I don't think there is any standard at all in terms of how much code can be considered a reasonable fair-use quotation, although the standard for ordinary textual sources is roughly (and take this with a huge grain of salt) 200 words or about 20% of the document, which ever is less.  Quoting a whole poem that is less than 200 words is considered a copyright violation, for example.
 * The final solution is to ask the original authors (if they can be contacted) if their software can be available under the terms of the GFDL. That certainly has problems related to dual-licensing in terms of forking and making two legally incompatible branches, and there are some software developers who simply hate the GFDL license even if they have released software under the GPL.  It is ugly, and unfortunate there isn't a better answer.  --Robert Horning 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)