Thread history

From Talk:Policies/Licensing Policy
Viewing a history listing
Jump to: navigation, search
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?

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