Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> ... which I'm sure will NOT hold up in court, so I propose we really end this
> discussion. Please leave the lawyering to the lawyers and lets go back to
> coding.
Please understand the motivation for OPENING this discussion -- not to
debate which license or what license, but to propose a few concrete
things the LP coding team can do to clarify licensing and (perhaps) make
it easier to upgrade the license if that's desired.
I particularly think it would be a good idea to make sure that all files
in the source tree -- code and docs -- have both copyright and licensing
statements in them.
More particularly, does anyone object to me adding a GFDL 1.1 or later
notice to the doc files I have written?
Best wishes,
-- Joe
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
