[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: doc license section
From: |
Carl Witty |
Subject: |
Re: doc license section |
Date: |
21 Jan 2004 14:04:42 -0800 |
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 13:56, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Might be worth thinking about GFDL for the manuals, while on the
> > subject of licenses.
>
> Yes, indeed. Maintain.texi says: "Manuals should use the GNU Free
> Documentation License".
Be aware that the feeling on the debian-legal mailing list is that the
GFDL is not sufficiently free for materials in Debian (for a number of
reasons which I personally find compelling). See
http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml for more
information (or read the debian-legal archives). It is likely that
GFDL-licensed materials will be removed from Debian after the next
Debian release.
(Marius: my e-mail message that mentioned "double-checked locking"
bounced from your ping.de address:
(reason: 553 direct mail from dialups not accepted here)
I think there's something wrong with the filtering there, because the
e-mail was sent from my corporate e-mail server, which is definitely not
a dialup.)
Carl Witty
- doc license section, Kevin Ryde, 2004/01/14
- Re: doc license section, Stephen Compall, 2004/01/14
- Re: doc license section, Neil Jerram, 2004/01/15
- Re: doc license section, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/21
- Re: doc license section, Kevin Ryde, 2004/01/21
- Re: doc license section,
Carl Witty <=
- Re: doc license section, Kevin Ryde, 2004/01/21
- Re: doc license section, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/21
- Re: doc license section, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/21
- Re: doc license section, Pierre Bernatchez, 2004/01/22
- Re: doc license section, Paul Jarc, 2004/01/22
- Re: doc license section, Marius Vollmer, 2004/01/22