[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nano-devel] updates, and relicensing questions...

From: Jordi Mallach
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] updates, and relicensing questions...
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:37:26 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)

On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Chris Allegretta wrote:
> In general my reading of the GPL 3 is that it's a pretty reasonable 
> license in its final form, and I can't think of any good reasons why one 
> would not want a text editor to be licensed with it.  Having not seen 
> any substantial arguments to the contrary I want to lend my support of 
> changing the code license to GPL3. 

+1, strongly for the code.

Re the dual docs licencing I proposed, GFDL is even acceptable in Debian
if no invariant sections are used; we discussed this a while back.

I guess the only "standard" invariants are the front and backcover
texts, which we can happily omit. Apparently GNU ed does this, to name
one example:

   Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
   under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
   any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
   Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

If we do exactly this, Debian'd be happy with just FDL docs.

Jordi Mallach PĂ©rez  --  Debian developer
address@hidden     address@hidden
GnuPG public key information available at

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]