GFDL 1.2 is listed twice

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 30 January 2012 at 16:43.
The highlighted comment was created in this revision.

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?

    Yecril71pl12:25, 25 January 2012

    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.

      Annew16:43, 30 January 2012