Yoni Rabkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I undestand the stance of the FSF toward the FDL, they have
> an ongoing commitment to it (they did author it after all) as the
> cannonical documentation license.
Indeed. And though 1.1 contains bugs, 2.0 promises to fix all of
them :-)
> I would gladly license all the modifications I have made (and
> will make) to the documentation under the FDL version 1.1.
I'm glad to hear that. Could you add the relevant section, or do
you want me to do that?
> Besides the text of the license itself I see no reason to ever have
> invariant sections in the Emms documentation.
Luckily, licenses are invariant in any case, so you don't have to
include that explicitly in the manual itself.
Greetings,
-- Jorgen
--
((email . "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/";)
(gpg . "1024D/028AF63C") (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))
_______________________________________________
Emms-help mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emms-help
