I suggest a few wording changes and additions to avoid some arguments
against the statement and to make it a little clearer.
I agree with earlier comments about adding the version number.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of
Anthony Towns writes (GR Proposal: GFDL statement):
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:37:32 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I suggest a few wording changes and additions to avoid some
arguments against the statement and to make it a little clearer.
I agree with earlier comments about adding the version number.
Anthony Towns
Ian Jackson wrote:
Also,
(4) How can this be fixed?
This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license
as the
Anthony Towns wrote:
(2.1) Invariant Sections
The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the
DFSG, which states:
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 21:17 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license
as the program it goes with. If you need to license under the GFDL for some
reason, dual-licence.
I think -legal came to a very definite consensus that
6 matches
Mail list logo
