Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

2009-03-31 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Anthony W. Youngman dijo [Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:57:32AM +0100]: > >That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original > >place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. > > In which case, you are NOT distributing the ORIGINAL work, but a > derived work, because you've

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

2009-03-29 Thread Leandro Doctors
2009/3/28 Samuel Thibault : > I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 > or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, > Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. > > How should I formulate the copyright file?  Say that Debian ships it >

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

2009-03-29 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <20090329090239.gw7...@anguilla.noreply.org>, Peter Palfrader writes I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't have to redistr

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

2009-03-29 Thread Peter Palfrader
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr>, Samuel > Thibault writes > >Hello, > > > >I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 > >or any later without invari

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

2009-03-28 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr>, Samuel Thibault writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formula

GFDL 1.1 or later

2009-03-28 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license

Re: GFDL 1.1

2009-01-30 Thread Dmitrijs Ledkovs
2009/1/30 Andrew Donnellan : Hi Dimitrij, On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM,   wrote: Dear all Software in question: GnomeSword Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1] I

Re: GFDL 1.1

2009-01-29 Thread Andrew Donnellan
Hi Dimitrij, On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM, wrote: > Dear all > > Software in question: GnomeSword > Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later > > The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no > invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1]

GFDL 1.1

2009-01-29 Thread dmitrij . ledkov
Dear all Software in question: GnomeSword Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1] I want to clarify that it still qualifies for the staying in Main. I've googled