On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 00:43 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:41:25AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Tue,16.Jun.09, 08:43:34, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > > > > > > BTW, I am not completely sure that one can write a document with some > > > paragraphs under GPL and some other under CC-BY-SA, and have a license > > > statement like "some parts on this documents are licensed under GPL and > > > some parts are licensed under CC-BY-SA". > > > > I don't think this is possible. Maybe if the GPL parts can exist without > > the CC-BY-SA parts, otherwise you have to distribute it all under the > > GPL (which CC-BY-SA prevents). > > FYI: "Debian Reference" origin contents has been removed and it has been > reintegrated to www.debian.org under DDP. > > Unless someone else had GPL pages, you may not need to worry about my > old pages.
I think we should not only be concerned about "known" GPL projects that could be dual licensed (like DR, DebianEdu, NewInLenny). we should consider the contents that could/should be merged various GPL documentations. Still, you raise an important point. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
