On 10/20/07, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not that I have any objection to the change, but note that your proposed
> license would not prevent the addition of invariant sections (or changes
> and additions under pretty much any terms the author of the changes wants
> to use).
Fair en
Chris Travers writes:
> 1) It would avoid the temptation to use invariant sections as personal
> soap-boxes (the great example of this is the forced inclusion of the GNU
> Manifesto in the EMACS manual).
Not that I have any objection to the change, but note that your proposed
license would not pre
On 10/20/07, David Mora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One day i was thinking on how could i implement an advanced payment module,
> there is no way to define an account as "advance", this feature is very
> important to handle
> checks before invoice, and for some business, as the building sector.
>
I really have no preference one way or the other, as I haven't really
looked at this issue. The idea of changing the license with
sufficient discussion appeals to me. The GNU Free Documentation
License, I would think appropriate, but you probably know the
restrictions and liberties it imposes on
One day i was thinking on how could i implement an advanced payment module,
there is no way to define an account as "advance", this feature is very
important to handle
checks before invoice, and for some business, as the building sector.
The ability to store an advance and to link it to ap/ar latt
Hi all;
When I orignally wrote the document which would become the LedgerSMB
manual, I licensed it under the GNU Free Documentation License. Since
then I have received a number of complaints regarding the licensing
terms of the manual. In general there seem to be a number of concerns
that it mig
