Thread history

Time	User	Activity	Comment
16:43, 30 January 2012	AnneW (Talk \| contribs)	New reply created	(Reply to GFDL 1.2 is listed twice)
19:26, 27 January 2012	Yecril71pl (Talk \| contribs)	Comment text edited	(they differ only in KDE approval)
12:25, 25 January 2012	Yecril71pl (Talk \| contribs)	New thread created

There are two identical bullets in §8 describing GFDL 1.2, they differ only in KDE approval. Why is that? Is it a way of legally saying that unapproved licenses are allowed?

Should it be assumed that documentation that bears no licensing metadata is GFDL?

Yecril71pl‎

Versions of the FDL after 1.2 require e.V. approval - a safeguard since we cannot foresee future licenses.

Our license statements do need some clarification, and someone is already working on this, but since there are legal implications it isn't a quick job.

Annew‎