Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

Anthony W. Youngman dijo [Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:57:32AM +0100]: That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. In which case, you are NOT distributing the ORIGINAL work, but a derived work, because you've

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

In message 20090329090239.gw7...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

2009/3/28 Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org: I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file?  Say that Debian ships

GFDL 1.1 or later

Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How