On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:27:52PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote: > > I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just > > because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian > > packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion > > of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to > > have it in main? > > No, it is not. > > In order to be in main the license should also permit modification of > the doc. > > GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it.
ARGH, NO, PLEASE NOT GFDL. GFDL is currently only tolerated, but will probably be quicked out of sarge+1 if the FSF doesn't see the light or whatever. > The best choice is definitely plain GPL or similar statement. The best choice is a licence similar to the source code which it documents :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
