As someone who works with license geeks and is working on a project where we're using open licenses for non-code content, might I recommend that you fine folks consider using the creative commons licenses. They are better suited to documentation and other textual content then software licenses. CC have also provided a very good (IMHO) tool that helps you decide the best license for your content .http://creativecommons.org/license/
Hope this helps. -- Ali Asad On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 6, 4:30 pm, Florent Aide <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli<[email protected]> wrote: >> > If yes, can you please add a LICENSE.txt to the root of that >> > repository clearing stating so? >> >> Good question. :) We'll clarify this point ASAP. > > Thanks for the quick feedback, I'll stay tuned for an answer > (which I need before packaging that ;-) ). > > BTW, if the copyright holder of the doc (i.e. doc writers) are > different than > TG2 authors, that should be specified as well. > > Many thanks! > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
