Xfce documentation licensing

[Jannis Pohlmann]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:19:56 +0200
Jasper Huijsmans <jasper at xfce.org> wrote:

> 2009/8/18 Brian J. Tarricone <brian at tarricone.org>:
> > On 08/17/2009 05:23 PM, Jim Campbell wrote:
> >
> >> I did want to bring up an issue relating to licensing of
> >> documentation, though.  If I understand correctly, up to this point
> >> the Xfce system docs have been licensed under the GPLv2 (or later).
> >> With the upcoming revamp of the documentation, I wanted to see if
> >> the group would consider licensing any newly-written documentation
> >> under the CC-By-SA v3.0 unported [0] license.
> >
> > Personally I'm fine with it for anything I've written, but remember
> > that this isn't a "group" decision.  The Right Thing[tm] to do here
> > is to look at the authorship information for each module's
> > documentation and contact all of those authors individually.  You
> > can't relicense the docs for a particular module until all its
> > authors agree, unless you want to rewrite substantial portions of
> > it from scratch.
> >
> 
> I'm fine with the license change for anything I've written (which once
> upon a time used to be a substantial part of the docs, but I'm not
> sure of the current status).

Same here. I'd be fine with CC-By-SA v3.0.

  - Jannis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce4-dev/attachments/20090820/493e80d4/attachment.pgp>