I demand that Thomas Wehrspann may or may not have written... > On Tuesday 15 February 2005 08:10, Ville Skytt? wrote: >>> But there's one problem with the licence: are there any non-free >>> pollut^H^H^H^H^H^Hcomponents, such as cover texts, which we should know >>> about? >> The Wiki is certainly welcome, but I think FDL is not a good idea; it's >> incompatible with the GPL. Think including docs from the Wiki in VDR, or >> vice versa. (Maybe Darren meant that)? It's probably too late to do >> anything about it though. >> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html >> http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/Tools/Attitude/fdl-harmful.html >> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html > Interesting links. > I knew that the FDL is not the best license for this, but the german Wiki > already falls under it and a translation is a derivation. > There are no cover texts or other non-free components. This is good... I'm now waiting for a cover text which says that there are no cover texts. ;-) > But if the licence really bothers you and others, we can change it and > start from scratch, or mark existing documents as FDL content until they > are exchanged. Yes. The latter seems like the better choice for reasons of practicality. [snip] > The vast amount of documents are translations by me. And till february 13 a > registration was required to edit, so we know the authors. I made a few small changes, mostly grammatical cleanups, yesterday. Permission to relicense those changes under the GPL is granted, subject to others' agreement. -- | Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington, | Debian, | s zap,tartarus,org | Northumberland | RISC OS | @ | Toon Army | <URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/> (PGP 2.6, GPG keys) This message was brought to you using only 100% recycled electrons.
