On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 07:35:54PM +0000, David Gerard wrote: > 2008/12/2 Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:48:31PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > >> I don't know what our documentation licensing stance is. MIT would keep > >> things simple, but I don't know if it's appropriate for docs. > > > What're our options? GFDL is out as DFSG-incompatible. > > GFDL is an unspeakable Cthulhu-grade horror if you go anywhere deeper > than the surface. It's amazing how little types of stuff it actually > makes sense from; no-one knows what the hell would happen in a serious > courtroom stoush given the already vast disparity between the letter > of the license and widespread practice. > > Learn from Wikipedia's HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE MISTAKE. Don't go there. > Whatever you do.
Yeah, I really dislike it, but cheerfully we still have a policy (well, it's rather beer-coaster as policies go, but what isn't) of only taking DFSG-compliant licenses, so it's objectively not suitable. Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
