On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 17:53 -0500, Jonathan Pryor wrote: > On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 14:36, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > > Hey guys, > > > > I had the impression that we had agreed to use the MIT X11 license > > for the Monkeyguide instead of the GNU FDL, is that correct? > > > > (the GNU FDL not being free documentation and all that). > > > > Miguel. > > Sort of. IIRC, the license was originally unspecified; lots was > written, but not everyone documented (a) what they wrote, and (b) what > license they had written it under. I know that some of what I wrote I > contributed to the Public Domain (interop.html). > > This issue was last brought up in July 2003. My recollection was that > this was never fully settled; it was pointed out the GNU FDL was listed > as the license for some documentation, that X11/BSD would be preferable, > and that we'd have to talk to each of the contributors to see if they'd > be willing to re-license. I don't see anything remotely like each > contributor explicitly stating what license they released their work > under, but my email archive only goes back to February 4, 2002. > > BTW, monodoc explicitly mentions that any contributions are licensed > under X11, so we know at least know what all new API documentation > should be licensed under. > > - Jon
I think what Jon summarized is correct as far as I recall. Everything I have contributed can be licensed under X11. _______________________________________________ Mono-docs-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-docs-list
