|
From: Philippe M. <mak...@a6...> - 2005-01-07 22:43:55
|
Hi Paul, Le 07/01/2005 21:06, Paul Vinkenoog a dit : > > But it would be practical if we agreed on a single licence. People who > want to reuse, alter or extend our docs would only have to understand > that one licence then. They wouldn't have to find out the specifics > for every single doc or docwriter/translator. That's make sense > > Our coders have agreed to use the IDPL, which you can find here: > > http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=doc&id=idpl > > The QuickStartGuide is also released under that licence. I don't remeber it, is it specify somewhere ? > Some articles in the IDPL look a bit silly for documentation, and > there's also a built-in special protection against using names that > Mozilla doesn't want you to use (which can't be removed because the > IDPL is derived from the Mozilla PL). > > Still, unless we come up with an Open Source documentation licence > real soon, maybe we should decide to use the IDPL for our docs too? > > Any suggestions? the GNU Free Documentation License ? <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html> |