On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> While I don't wish to ride slipshod over copyright law, I think you're
> over-thinking this. We can cover >90% of the contributors with one mail
> to f-l, and unless anyone objects to the licence change, Just Do It.
>
> If someone objects, then
Hi,
Vincent Untz wrote:
> I think you're referring to the footer on the web page? I believe the
> GNOME project being marked as copyright holder here is just a way to say
> "copyright held by many contributors to the GNOME project". I don't
> think anybody signed any paper to assign copyrights for
Le lundi 14 mars 2011, à 09:43 +, Allan Day a écrit :
> The GNOME project is the copyright holder. Does this mean it is
> straightforward to make the switch in these two instances? Do we require
> a formal OK from the foundation?
I think you're referring to the footer on the web page? I believ
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 12:26 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 14:39 -0600, Paul Cutler wrote:
> > I had a discussion with Bradley Kuhn at last year's Linux Foundation
> > Collaboration Summit - it's not possible to dual license these two
> > copylefts. The GNOME Documentation tea
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 14:39 -0600, Paul Cutler wrote:
> I had a discussion with Bradley Kuhn at last year's Linux Foundation
> Collaboration Summit - it's not possible to dual license these two
> copylefts. The GNOME Documentation team is licensing all new
> documentation for applications (and on
I had a discussion with Bradley Kuhn at last year's Linux Foundation
Collaboration Summit - it's not possible to dual license these two
copylefts.
It is certainly possible; in fact, that's what Wikipedia does with
most of its pages. I think there must have been a misunderstanding.
Sh
I had a discussion with Bradley Kuhn at last year's Linux Foundation
Collaboration Summit - it's not possible to dual license these two
copylefts. The GNOME Documentation team is licensing all new
documentation for applications (and on library.gnome.org) under a
CC-BY 3.0 license.[1]
I agree we s
The problem is that the actual content of the Gnome wiki is not licensed.
Relicense all the content can be a hard task :/
It is very important to start working on it.
The first step is to ask everyone contributing henceforth to agree to
a suitable license for his past contributions too.
Material that teaches something (such as how to use GNOME) or serves
for reference (such as, about GNOME) should be released under the GFDL.
That's GNU's license standard for documentation.
Other material could be released under any CC license.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Fou
2011/3/10 Javier Jardón
> On 10 March 2011 22:22, Paul Cutler wrote:
> > We had previously agreed to a CC-BY 3.0 license. I'll have to dig up
> > the emails from somewhere.
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
> I raised this issue some time ago, take a look here: [1]
>
> The problem is that the actual content o
On 10 March 2011 22:22, Paul Cutler wrote:
> We had previously agreed to a CC-BY 3.0 license. I'll have to dig up
> the emails from somewhere.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Allan Day wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm trying to find out how we license the content on the various GNOME
>>
We had previously agreed to a CC-BY 3.0 license. I'll have to dig up
the emails from somewhere.
Paul
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Allan Day wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to find out how we license the content on the various GNOME
> websites (including live.gnome.org), but have so far been
Hi all,
I'm trying to find out how we license the content on the various GNOME
websites (including live.gnome.org), but have so far been unable to find
any relevant information. Is there a particular licence that is used for
this content, or is it just copyrighted to the GNOME Foundation?
It woul
13 matches
Mail list logo
