On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 05:42 -0800, K.G.Schneider wrote: > Dan, are you asking for a re-vote? If so, I suggest continuing with > the vote and letting the balloting language stand as-is; it is clear, > and allows some procedural latitude. >
Karen, was it clear to the community that they were voting to make the code in the docs available under a license that's incompatible with the existing OpenSRF / Evergreen code bases, until those code bases themselves adopt the GPL v3.0? For the amount of code that will be in the docs, that's probably fine, and the author can make that code available under both the GPL v2 (with the "or later" redistribution clause) so that it can also be redistributed with the OpenSRF & Evergreen code bases, as well as the GPL v3.0. So if we go ahead with licensing the code in the docs under the GPL v3.0 using the unmodified proposals, then that's what I'll do with the code in http://evergreen-ils.org/~denials/workshop.html and other authors / developers, being reasonable sorts, will probably do the same. _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
