Since the beginning of the Europaio projects, back in 2004, we have released our main
works with Open Source-style licences.
Although our primary works are not software, they are not a
common linguistic research project, either; it
is about Europe adopting its future national language,
and about Europeans -which are probably the
biggest work contributors for Open Source projects-
deciding the shape of their future language.
At first, the GNU licences seemed to be the only alternative to basic proprietary and
completely copyrighted works. They are clearly not designed for this kind of work, though,
given that it is made mainly in Europe, with very specialized aims and by small work groups.
Using GNU would also
constrain our freedom to sell commercial licences, thus limiting our funding resources to
private donations, which are not a tradition on this side of the Atlantic.
The GNU FDL would, then:
- Improve our image of real Open Source/Libre supporters.
- Lessen our funding possibilities due to Europe's lack of donation's culture.
- Allow anyone to change and distort our works, to copy freely our ideas, change basic
standards, and ruin thus our common objective of Europaio becoming Europe's national
- Allow anyone with more resources to create another, more popular projects,
just by making some minor
changes to our works, without paying us for the work done.
Creative Common licences are not the definitive licences, and are indeed not suited for
many works, but they fit our main works' needs, as they:
- Allow collaboration and free access to -and redistribution of- knowledge,
because they are Open Source.
- Improve our funding possibilities, as they help us grow faster than with traditionally
copyrighted works, being thus able to become a
social movement with thousands of supporters/collaborators, and to
apply for more public funding, which is the primary source of Europe's non-profit (non-charity)
- Allow us to prevent others from changing basic standards of Dnghu's Europaio, where
other stricter Libre licences would limit our defence possibilities.
- Give us real freedom to sell commercial licences to those who want to make independent
commercial projects -books, media, web sites- based on our works.
We have not yet decided under which licence will our software works be released. We
rely mainly on Open Source software, but given our concerns about our works' integrity
and other intelectual property issues, GNU licenses are probably not suited. We
are currently considering releasing
our software with BSD/Apache-like licences, while maintaining Creative Commons licences for
We also plan to use for some works a real Libre licence, the
Dnghu General Open Academic Licence or
which is designed to be a simple way to release our works
with an easy concept of free recognition/non-commercial/share alike licence, without all those
legal paragraphs which are not usually read by the average licensee. It is, however, not
designed to fit our main works' legal protection needs.