Henri Sivonen wrote:
Approved licenses are the CC Attribution and Attribution Share-Alike 2.0
Licenses.
Is this policy going to be applied to new docs on www.mozilla.org as
well?
No plans for www.mozilla.org yet, but I'm pretty sure website-drivers
wouldn't
object to new documents being licensed under these licenses. The mozilla.org
build system, though, isn't set up to label things like DevMo is.
I'm just curious about the rationale behind the license choice. Why were
CC-A and CC-SA licenses chosen over some other licenses that are
designed for Free Software documentation?
I'll have to let Gerv or Mitchell answer that question. GNU FDL, which I
guess is what you're referring too, was seen as more troublesome than the
CC licenses.
~fantasai
_______________________________________________
mozilla-documentation mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
