Re: [Nano-devel] updates, and relicensing questions...

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 31 July 2007, David Ramsey wrote:
> On ... Jean-Philippe Guérard <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is also true for GPLv3, but the GPLv2 wording was
> > targeted at software, not at documentation. While nothing prevents it
> > from being used for documentation, I don't think it's a very good
> > license for documentation. For a GNU project, I think the GNU Free
> > Documentation License would be a better choice.
> >
> > See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
>
> I'll look into this.  I've never really read through the FDL in detail
> before, aside from the parts about unmodifiable sections (which I don't
> particularly like).

i think going with a standard CC license is more appropriate for documentation 
than the FDL ...
-mike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.