On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:52:37PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > At Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:09:48 +0000, > MJ Ray wrote:
>> Also, it's only a postponement, not a long-term fix. Please >> help explain to [EMAIL PROTECTED] why requiring a >> known-buggy GPL-incompatible licence is a bad idea. > Requiring a certain license is just a stupid thing to begin > with. The requirement should be that it's free (or you can add the > extra requirement that it should be GPL-compatible like gna.org has, > that's also useful because you then share all code). > But if somebody wants to release his documentation under the BSD > license, I don't see any reason why that should be forbidden by > savannah. It isn't. What they require is that the documentation be released under the GFDL or a compatible license. You can dual (or triple) license it under GFDL|GPL or GFDL|BSD or ... -- Lionel _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
