MIT is fine for docs, GPL is weird though. Basically MIT let's you do whatever. We *could* dual licence the docs as MIT and CC attribution, but I'm not terribly keen on trying too hard to force people to attribute properly.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Ali Asad Lotia<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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! >> > >> > > > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
