On Jan 21, 2008 1:58 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2008 10:50 PM, Timothy Clemans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The message that started this is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_21#Image:Sagecontourplot.png > > > > If this person's is right that you can't release a screenshot of the > > Sage Notebook under a CC license then I'm worried that the Sage > > documentation can't actually be licensed under CC-by-sa since it > > includes code from docstrings in the GPLed Sage code. > > That's an excellent question. I personally think that all docstrings in Sage > should be viewed as part of the Sage "documentation", and > hence also be licensed under CC, since we state that all the documentation > of Sage is so licensed (this could be a dual license -- it's under CC > and GPL). > Does anybody disagree? We're the copyright holders on 100% of > this stuff, so it's up to us to decide.
This sounds good to me - SAGE docs under a dual license. > > -- william > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
