On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:04:14 +0200, Jakob Eriksson <ja...@vmlinux.org>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:25:40 +0800, Edwin Eyan Moragas <e...@yndy.org>
> wrote:
>>> I think the documentation is tightly coupled and in sync with the
>>> so I felt that it should be under the same license as the code.
> I always thought one of the Creative Commons licenses are better suited
> for
> documentation.

Sorry for replying to myself.

For simplicity, you can also dual license.  Documentation, as part of the
code, is GPL (or LGPL or X11 if my wishes come true) but, documentation
also be distributed under a Creative Commons license of Alex' choice.
This way an O'Reilly Picolisp book could more easily come true... (another
daydream I have. Not that I would write it mind you - I just want it my


UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to