Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 18:34 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit : > I'd rather not keep track of individual licenses in the source > tree. Since he's stated that his work is in public domain, > there'd be no problems with people extracting it for any CC stuff. > ... err wait, are we talking about Trevor Daniels, or Trevor Baca?
Bloody mao, we're talking about the autor of cary.ly :-) > HOWEVER, I'm quite willing to re-open the debate about licenses or > relicensing or whatever -- as long as it's done at a convenient > time. Right now is not convenient. Sure, so right now isn't convenient either to remove cary.ly and other so-said problematic files. > If something's in the public domain, then we can take it an stamp > a FDL onto it. Since the initial spark was to clarify the license > situation, let's do that. Yes, let's do this for main manuals that include snippets. > Or, we could add a boilerplate message that anything in > input/snippets/ is public domain. Then we'd have > > /* GPLv2 > /Documentation/* FDL > /Documentation/snippets/* public domain > > where the most restrictive search pattern selects the license. We already stamp each snippet in Documentation/snippets "public domain", and state it at the beginning of Snippets document, so it shows up in PDF, Info and HTML. We could protect the first page of the document under FDL, but would that make any sense? Best, John
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
