2015-06-17 10:06 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ...it's painful, time-consuming, boring, etc... but we might be able to > > get the 20 or so folks who contributed the docs to agree to relicense... > > It's boring work indeed but probably better in the long term. > > > ...the CC-SA 3.0 is not a viral license like (L)GPL can be, it's just > about > > the documentation, it's not saying anything about the code base which has > > nothing to do with the documentation... > > Absolutely, so another option is to avoid including docs in the code > release (I haven't checked if they are currently included) and keep > the docs well separated while this is being sorted out. > When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the *.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our source package distribution? But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct? Guillaume -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
