Hi all, I'm slowly accepting the fact that a new release of libdbi-drivers is warranted. One of the things discussed in the past are the differing or absent licenses in the drivers and driver docs. This situation makes packaging libdbi-drivers a dangerous task. The consensus was that we should re-license all drivers under the LGPL. This affects only the sqlite and sqlite3 drivers, which I am responsible for, and I've checked in the required fixes.
However, the driver docs should be licensed appropriately as well. The libdbi docs and some of the driver docs are released under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, which makes them compatible with Debian's license policy. Don't ask me why). The remaining driver docs apparently have no explicit license blurb. I'd like to go ahead and include the GFDL boilerplate text into the remaining driver docs. Is this ok with the authors of the affected drivers? Are there any good reasons why we should not do this? regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka") http://www.mhoenicka.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Libdbi-drivers-devel mailing list Libdbi-drivers-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libdbi-drivers-devel
