| 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 |
Archives