On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:26:19 +0200, Bastien bastien.gue...@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Hi Ian,
Ian Barton li...@manor-farm.org 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
David Maus dm...@ictsoc.de 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
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 that
Bastien wrote:
Hi Tycho,
tycho garen ga...@tychoish.com 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
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
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] license.
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
