Hi guys, It's me again :-) I asked my team aobut using a dual license, GPL / CC-BY. So far the response has been good. Several people have said "yay" and no one has said "nay". We are currently drafting the copyright notice. Some people wanted to make the terms clearer. So this is what I came up with:
This document is Copyright 2004 by its contributors as defined in the section titled Authors. You can distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/). I have now been asked to run this by you. To see if anyone here sees a problem with it. In particular, someone was wondering if we were required to add "under the terms of" before "the Creative Commons...". I am pretty sure we don't need that, on the basis that Perl's notice doesn't have it. This is Perl's notice: <perl-notice> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "Artistic License" which comes with this Kit. </perl-notice> Notice that the notice I wrote follows the Perl one. I figured that Perl is a tried-and-true Free Software project with a dual license. Thoughts? Comments? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
