Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:27:52PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> > I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just
> > because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian
> > packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion
> > of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to
> > have it in main?
> No, it is not.
> In order to be in main the license should also permit modification of
> the doc.
> GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it.
ARGH, NO, PLEASE NOT GFDL. GFDL is currently only tolerated, but will probably
be quicked out of sarge+1 if the FSF doesn't see the light or whatever.
> The best choice is definitely plain GPL or similar statement.
The best choice is a licence similar to the source code which it documents :)