[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

please advise on proper documentation license


I'm a long-time Debian user, and also one of the upstream developers for
gramps package. Among other things, I am the author of most of the
documentation and the docs' copyright holder.

Since our package is a gnome application, we simply used a standard
boilerplate which most of the gnome apps used to use (distributed with
the scrollkeeper example: GFDL license with no invariant sections, no
front/back cover matters, etc).

Now that I read the Draft Debian Position Statement put together on the
page of Manoj Srivastava, I think we'd like to change the way our docs
are licensed.

What would the debain-legal people suggest we use for the documentation
license instead of GFDL?

Thanks in advance,

Alexander Roitman   http://ebner.neuroscience.umn.edu/people/alex.html
Dept. of Neuroscience, Lions Research Building
2001 6th Street SE, Minneapolis, MN  55455
Tel (612) 625-7566   FAX (612) 626-9201

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: