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?
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.