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

[Jordi Mallach]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Chris Allegretta wrote:
> In general my reading of the GPL 3 is that it's a pretty reasonable 
> license in its final form, and I can't think of any good reasons why one 
> would not want a text editor to be licensed with it.  Having not seen 
> any substantial arguments to the contrary I want to lend my support of 
> changing the code license to GPL3. 

+1, strongly for the code.

Re the dual docs licencing I proposed, GFDL is even acceptable in Debian
if no invariant sections are used; we discussed this a while back.

I guess the only "standard" invariants are the front and backcover
texts, which we can happily omit. Apparently GNU ed does this, to name
one example:

   Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
   under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
   any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
   Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

If we do exactly this, Debian'd be happy with just FDL docs.

Jordi
-- 
Jordi Mallach Pérez  --  Debian developer     http://www.debian.org/
address@hidden     address@hidden     http://www.sindominio.net/
GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature