Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller: > >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote: > > > > I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with > > it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs. > > GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are > > all licenses that can be mixed together. I don't know how/if we > > should resolve this. > > So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything > into "FSF-APPROVED"?
Yeah, I think that's reasonable. I'm currently in contact with FSF-people so I hope we can clarify if all the "looks free but is not mentioned on the FSF homepage"-licenses. > > For documentation, we may want to have another set? I'll add one > > with the well known free documentation licenses (FDL, CC by, cc > > by-sa). If we decide to go some other way, we can throw it away, but > > I wanted to start something ;-) > > Is your "FREE-DOCUMENTS" meant to include things like fonts, or do we > need another group for them? I was unsure about that but I'd say yes unless we want to complicate things more than neccessary. I already put in one font license. -- Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/ GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: ha...@hboeck.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
