Re: documentation license?

Hi Jakob, For simplicity, you can also dual license. Documentation, as part of the code, is GPL (or LGPL or X11 if my wishes come true) but, documentation can also be distributed under a Creative Commons license of Alex' choice. What would be the advantage if the documentation is under a

Re: documentation license?

Hi Jakob, I quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses which is an excellent page by the way. Thanks! But MIT license for everything would make me be quiet and happy, too. OK, I see. I must say that I also more and more tend to MIT/X11. It is so very

Re: documentation license?

Hi Edwin, what's the license of the documentation that comes with picoLisp? I assumed that it is also under the GPL until now, as the GPL is the only license included in the distribution. As we are currently discussing the license issue, what would be your proposal for the documentation? Is a

Re: documentation license?

Hi Alex, On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de wrote: Hi Edwin, what's the license of the documentation that comes with picoLisp? I assumed that it is also under the GPL until now, as the GPL is the only license included in the distribution. As we are

documentation license?

Hi Alex, what's the license of the documentation that comes with picoLisp? best, /e -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe