[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In the general case, if the documentation is to be freely > redistributable to a large license, a license which allows distribution > under terms at least as liberal as the software license should be > sufficient. Indeed, but that is a general point not specific to documentation. It is commonplace for parts of a GPLed software package to be released under newBSD/MIT. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
- Free documentation licenses David Johnson
- Re: Free documentation licenses SamBC
- Re: Free documentation licenses Jimmy Wales
- Re: Free documentation licenses John Cowan
- Re: Free documentation licenses David Johnson
- Re: Free documentation licenses SamBC
- Re: Free documentation licenses John Cowan
- Re: Free documentation licenses kmself
- Re: Free documentation licenses David Johnson
- Re: Free documentation licenses John Cowan
- Re: Free documentation licenses kmself
- Re: Free documentation licenses John Cowan
- Re: Free documentation licenses David Johnson
- Re: Free documentation licenses kmself
- Re: Free documentation licenses Mitchell Baker
- Re: Free documentation licenses Rick Moen
- Re: Free documentation licenses Ben Tilly
- Re: Free documentation licenses John Cowan
- Re: Free documentation licenses John Cowan

