On 11/29/11 08:01, Sven Vermeulen wrote:

> I don't consider this as a "problem" per se, so I don't think we need to put
> much effort in these things. Licenses evolve; documents too. Eventually,
> old(er) documents will be replaced with newer ones anyhow. And it is not
> that the 2.5 license has a major issue for us - it's just that 3.0 is
> somewhat newer and used on the wiki.

This issue is even simpler than that. Just assume the authors (owners?)
are not going to say anything. If one or 2 do, resolve the issue
individually, or pull the doc. After all, when was the last time
there was an issue of this sort?

jmo,
James