On 10 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On an unrelated note, it would be best if the documentation > specifies a license. The GPL is not very appropriate for > documentation. Personally I'd prefer a non-restrictive Creative > Commons license:
> http://creativecommons.org/license/ > Any other choice is fine by me, too. It's just best if this is > decided early so that this is clear to potential future > contributors. I am not a lawyer, so I don't care; but I would add that any license that allows greater accessibility is better in my eyes. Ie, some web site (wikipedia, etc.) only accept a certain license? Does Debian or any other distribution only accept doc with certain licenses? The developing world license is also interesting... Anyways, The "GnuFU" document is the GNU document license. I think it is ok to quote other "open source" documents [or anything] as long as you attribute and keep the quotation minimal. However, I do have a quandary of incorporating these links, "http://basis.gnufu.net/gnufu/index.php/GnuFU_en"; "http://www.jraitala.net/comp/articles/2002/pppoe/"; They both have different licenses... Same thing as BSD vs Mozilla vs GPL vs other OSS with code. Hence my ostrich like stance. Hans de Graaff started the document. Did Hans have a preference and/or care at all? If not, the GNU document license is fine given no other reasons, preferences. Regards, Bill Pringlemeir. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
