I am not so sure about that. Is it safe to assume that the author of a file that clearly states to be under the GPL is also giving permission to release a derivative work under a dual license?
El jueves, 8 de diciembre de 2016, 21:52:07 (UTC+1), Dima Pasechnik escribió: > > > > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:41:55 PM UTC, mmarco wrote: >> >> If I am not mistaken, the reference manual is automatically built from >> the docstrings in the source code files... which are GPL. How does that >> affect the resulting documentation? >> > > well, we merely do a kind of dual license for the part of the source that > are docstrings. > This should not be a problem, IMHO. > > >> >> El jueves, 8 de diciembre de 2016, 17:17:19 (UTC+1), Dima Pasechnik >> escribió: >>> >>> As pointed out in >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/n0B16q4h2c8/iHhDLRD5BwAJ >>> various places in src/doc/ mention different (incompatible, according to >>> Debian people) licenses >>> for the documentation. >>> >>> We ought to do something about it. >>> >>> GFDL is only mentioned >>> in src/doc/en/reference/history_and_license/index.rst >>> while CC-BY-SA v3.0 is mentioned in src/doc/en/reference/index.rst >>> >>> I propose to make everything CC-BY-SA v3.0 which seems to be more >>> reasonable one. >>> >>> Dima >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
