In doubt stay with vitamins and excercise ... which is to say ... just do the same we are doing until someone comes along and gives a reason not to ... at least that is MHO
Rogerio 2012/2/7 Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> > Hi :) > Hmmm, i thought i would easily find Richard Stallman's rant about the > topic but it seems to have been toned-down somewhat. The Free Software > Foundation do recommend using a slightly different version and a wikipedia > article points out that CC-by-SA is almost identical > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License > > Just to contradict that a little chat in LWN about the issue > http://lwn.net/Articles/394430/ > > Apparently the GPL does mention the word "software" but only a couple of > times. So it only needs a slight modification. Even a slight modification > makes it a non-GPL though. Personally i think the best reason for not > using the GPL is to keep all the licenses for all the official > documentation the same so as to avoid confusion. > > I think people want to get on with work rather than get bogged-down in > chatting about legal issues which most of us have no idea about anyway. An > ill-informed consensus decision can still be 'wrong' and land us in hot > water. > > Regards from > Tom :) > > > --- On Tue, 7/2/12, Sigrid Carrera <sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > From: Sigrid Carrera <sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents > To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org > Date: Tuesday, 7 February, 2012, 18:33 > > Hi, > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 01:37:50 -0800 (PST) > yecril71pl <giecr...@stegny.2a.pl> wrote: > > > > > Jean Weber wrote > > > > > > The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo > > > guides they were derived from, and the templates include this > > > licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual > > > license). > > > > > > > Note that GPL applied to documentation is void, so it may as well > > be removed. > > Says who? Can you give me a reliable source for this? > And also, in which country? > > Sigrid > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
