Talk:Educational Community License

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright Infringement?

Opensource.org site content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

encyclopedic content? con-senses ness shifts from time to time if you don't like how this page is then you should expand it instead of reverting it!

--Mkouklis 12:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FSF approval?

Is the license an FS-license according the FSF? And is it compatible to the GNU GPL? -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic institutions?

I think I may be confused. I can't see anything in the text about academic institutions; the closest I can find is the use of the word "Educational" in the title. Does anyone have a source for the first sentence of the article?

Secondly, what qualifies as an "academic institution"? Presumably schools and universities count. Do private schools and universities count? How about employee training companies? Do public government research departments count? Other government agencies? Do they count if the civil servants in the department are involved in education? How about the research departments of companies? Presumably private individuals are permitted to use software with this license; is a private individual allow to use it when doing research that might lead to a commercial invention? When doing research for a book they intend to publish?

I still don't understand how this license differs from, say, the GPL 3 (edit -- this comment applies to version one only). Who would choose to use it, and why? What are its disadvantages/grounds for criticism? Sorry to be so confused.

HLHJ (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove full text section?

Since there is now a version two of the license, is it still relevant to have the version one fulltext in the body of the article? Putting both full texts in would make the article ridiculously long. Would it be better to just use links to the fulltexts?

HLHJ (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert-Review and Plain Language

This article was marked as needing review from an expert in the area since June 2008. My day job is Copyright Specialist at the University of Michigan and I deal with software licensing issues frequently. I updated this article with more information and references and believe it to be accurate (thus removing that box). Addtionally, I reworded the license compatibility part in hopes that it was more plain language (thus removing that box as well). Greg G (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]