On Sb, 21 ian 12, 11:08:55, David Prévot wrote: > > I take it as a remark, not as an objection, and thus propose the > attached patch if we agree on the dual licensing (@@date@@ will of > course be replaced once agreed on the license choice and its wording). > You can have a look at the built page on my test server: > > +<p> > +Since @@day@@ January 2012, the new material can be redistributed > +and/or modified under the terms of the <a href="legal/licenses/mit">\ > +MIT (Expat) License</a> (the latest version is usually available at > +<url http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT>) or, at your option, of the > +<a href="legal/licenses/gpl2">GNU General Public License</a>; either > +version??2 of the License, or any later version (the latest version is > +usually available at <url http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>). > +</p> The first link leads to a template for the license, shouldn't the site rather point to an own page with the filled out template? There is also Section 4. in the GPL which states "...and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program." It is my understanding that the site itself should include a full copy of the GPL... Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature