+legal-list, any suggestions? Stefan
On 02/04/2013 11:03 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote: > On 12/14/2012 01:11 PM, David Nečas wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:54:13PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote: >>> I personally like the exception method ala Autotools but would be >>> fine with the GFDL 1.3 license which has already been cleared with >>> Eclipse.org. >> >> I hope that whatever license is chosen it is meant to be be dual with >> GNU GPL under which they are implicitly licensed now. GNU FDL is a >> peculiar license, incompatible with GNU GPL(!) and in some variants >> verging on non-free, whether cleared by eclipse.org or not. If the >> files were GNU FDL license I am afraid many would nave to look for >> replacements under a different license. >> >>> Is there any way of contacting the original contributor of the .png >>> files to have them licensed? If not, I would suggest replacing >>> them. It should be simple to find such icons with an appropriate >>> license. >> >> As someone who likes the current images and their current license I >> wonder what is the best way to keep them used when the documentation of >> my projects is compiled. >> >> Yeti >> > > Any progress on this? This is potentially a serious issue. Should I > open a bug against gtk docs? > > GPL would be unacceptable from our stand-point for documentation. I > think the best solution would be that the owner of the documentation > gets to decide how to license the generated files (i.e. they purposely > have no license information). > > The icons still need to be dealt with. > > -- Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-doc-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-doc-list _______________________________________________ gtk-doc-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-doc-list
