[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nano-devel] updates, and relicensing questions...
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
Subject: |
Re: [Nano-devel] updates, and relicensing questions... |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:31:52 -0400 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.7 |
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, David Ramsey wrote:
> On ... Jean-Philippe Guérard <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is also true for GPLv3, but the GPLv2 wording was
> > targeted at software, not at documentation. While nothing prevents it
> > from being used for documentation, I don't think it's a very good
> > license for documentation. For a GNU project, I think the GNU Free
> > Documentation License would be a better choice.
> >
> > See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
>
> I'll look into this. I've never really read through the FDL in detail
> before, aside from the parts about unmodifiable sections (which I don't
> particularly like).
i think going with a standard CC license is more appropriate for documentation
than the FDL ...
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.