On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400
Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote:
So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU
All-Permissive License[3].
We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the
RF == Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
[Offensiveness of WTFPL text]
RF Agreed, this is unfortunate. :)
Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know license
proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent and serves
the necessary purpose then I
[removed publican-list from cc]
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote:
[re: WTFPL]
Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know
license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent
and serves the necessary
On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced
by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora
wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new
CC licensing used in both those
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced
by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora
wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist
On 10/06/2009 02:46 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced
by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the
