1 |
Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller: |
2 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with |
5 |
> > it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs. |
6 |
> > GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are |
7 |
> > all licenses that can be mixed together. I don't know how/if we |
8 |
> > should resolve this. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything |
11 |
> into "FSF-APPROVED"? |
12 |
|
13 |
Yeah, I think that's reasonable. |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm currently in contact with FSF-people so I hope we can clarify if all the |
16 |
"looks free but is not mentioned on the FSF homepage"-licenses. |
17 |
|
18 |
> > For documentation, we may want to have another set? I'll add one |
19 |
> > with the well known free documentation licenses (FDL, CC by, cc |
20 |
> > by-sa). If we decide to go some other way, we can throw it away, but |
21 |
> > I wanted to start something ;-) |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Is your "FREE-DOCUMENTS" meant to include things like fonts, or do we |
24 |
> need another group for them? |
25 |
|
26 |
I was unsure about that but I'd say yes unless we want to complicate things |
27 |
more than neccessary. I already put in one font license. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/ |
31 |
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: hanno@××××××.de |