On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:26:19 +0200, Bastien wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> Ian Barton writes:
>
> > However, I think you may have to begin the long and
> > tedious task of identifying all contributors to Worg and asking their
> > permission.
>
> Yes I will.
>
> > If this isn't done we may end up wi
David Maus writes:
> IIRC there was some back and forth about compatibility of this
> statement and the GPL, but cannot remember where I read this. This is
> obvious, but why not just drop a message to FSF legal team with the
> question about this issue?
I'm in touch with RMS about this issue.
Bastien wrote:
>Hi Tycho,
>tycho garen writes:
>> This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is
>> that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm
>> not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but
>> it's worth considering.
>Mhh
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:36:45AM +0200, Bastien wrote:
> Here is what I read at the bottom of every emacswiki.org page:
>
> This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public
> License. [..]
> So this is GPLv2. Any idea why this isn't GPLv3?
No clue. I must confess th
Hi Tycho,
tycho garen writes:
> This seems fine, the only possible concern that I have with this is
> that GFDL licensed code snippets aren't compatible with the GPL. I'm
> not sure how much actual code is in worg, and if this is an issue, but
> it's worth considering.
Mhh.. yes, you're right.
Hi Ian,
Ian Barton writes:
> However, I think you may have to begin the long and
> tedious task of identifying all contributors to Worg and asking their
> permission.
Yes I will.
> If this isn't done we may end up with "Free" and "Non free"
> versions of Worg.
I hope every contributor will b
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Bastien wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
>
> Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
> GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
> 3.0[3] licens
> what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
>
> Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
> GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
> 3.0[3] license. This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
> from Worg
Bastien wrote:
>Hi all,
>what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
>Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
>GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
>3.0[3] license. This solution would make it possible to take ex
Hi all,
what is the most suitable license (or licensing scheme) for Worg?
Here is the best solution I can think of: dual-licensing[1] under the
GNU Free Documentation License 1.3[2] and the Creative Commons BY-SA
3.0[3] license. This solution would make it possible to take excerpts
from Worg and
10 matches
Mail list logo
