[Orgmode] Re: What license for Worg?

2010-08-09 Thread Memnon Anon
Hi, IIRC there was some back and forth about compatibility of this statement and the GPL, but cannot remember where I read this. Thats exactly what I remembered, and I searched gmane for it. This topic (emacswiki and license) came up when bzr was adopted and the main document for transition

Re: [Orgmode] Re: What license for Worg?

2010-08-06 Thread Andreas Röhler
Am 04.08.2010 07:36, schrieb Bastien: Or we might also consider CC0: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ It looks way more simple to me. It also circumvents the problem of people having to sign the FSF papers if the Org/Emacs manuals include part of the code they contributed

[Orgmode] Re: What license for Worg?

2010-08-04 Thread Sebastian Rose
Hi Bastien, Bastien bastien.gue...@wikimedia.fr writes: 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.

[Orgmode] Re: What license for Worg?

2010-08-03 Thread Bastien
Or we might also consider CC0: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ It looks way more simple to me. It also circumvents the problem of people having to sign the FSF papers if the Org/Emacs manuals include part of the code they contributed to Worg as examples. What people think?

[Orgmode] Re: What license for Worg?

2010-08-02 Thread Bernt Hansen
David Maus dm...@ictsoc.de writes: 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