On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing does not mention GPL etc as > >> permissible for documentation though I pretty sure we do ship GPL'ed > >> documentation. Perhaps a generic note should be added that what is > >> permissible for code is permissible for content (though may or may not > >> be suitable). > > > > It's not generally true. The GPL, while used for some documentation, is > > a terrible choice. Other licenses are worse, because they explicitly > > make references to code. I've purposely not listed the GPL here, because > > neither Fedora nor the FSF wants to encourage its usage as a > > documentation license. > > Right. So why not list GPL specifically as permissible but not recommended? Fair enough. Done. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
