On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 22:48 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi debian-legal, hi fai :-) > > On Friday 05 August 2005 17:29, Geert Stappers wrote: > > | Under the following conditions: > > | by > > | Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the > > | author or licensor. > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > unfortunatly not be me: i hereby request you to praise my name three times in > capital letters _and_ once written backward if you use it to deploy software > for churches. > > :-) How about, proposing instead a license that would please you and others better? Would it be better for everybody, if the wiki would be GPL licensed? Should I change the license to GPL? After reading Julia's comments on problems that might appear when we cite FAI code in the wiki, that sounds much more reasonable for me, maybe even the only useful/viable way to go. > > So the question for a good licence for a wiki for a software which is released > under the GPL is still open... It's in fact an interesting question if there is somebody alive and reading mail in debian-legal. Or do we need to prove that fai is a debian package? - dpkg/apt-cache should do that better than us. Or is it a subscribed-only list that doesn't tell use we're not subscribed, just stores the mails in /dev/null as long as we're not? Henning
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part