--===============0737341207==
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart2989975.k7npxODrTp";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--nextPart2989975.k7npxODrTp
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Saturday, 7 January 2006 11:51, Daniel Molkentin wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 09:47 schrieb Isaac Clerencia:
> > 2) Convince manual authors to a) relicense their works under the GPL, or
> >    b) double-license them under both the GFDL and GPL.
>
> How is the GPL a good license for documentation?
Well, people tend to agree that the GPL is not a bad license for documentat=
ion=20
for a GPL program. It allows to easily copy code to documentation and the=20
other way around without any license headaches (GPL and GFDL are=20
incompatible).

> Doesn't Debian allow for Creative Commons Licenses? If I was to relicense=
 my=20
> contributions to the docs (which is, granted, fairly little), I'd rather
> prefer CC (the exact conditions will have to be discussed of course).
There are problems with every Creative Commons license, you can read about=
=20
them here:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html

Best regards

=2D-=20
Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es
Work: <isaac@warp.es>   | Debian: <isaac@debian.org>

--nextPart2989975.k7npxODrTp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Signed by Isaac Clerencia <isaac@warp.es>

iD8DBQBDv7gZQET2GFTmct4RAju7AJ4hNvkPyTTo7iN52OQbVjzXY69fnwCfbYkf
nExL9IGoljm8vk539GpmR5s=
=qbM8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2989975.k7npxODrTp--

--===============0737341207==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

--===============0737341207==--