Thread history

From Talk:Policies/Licensing Policy
Viewing a history listing
Jump to: navigation, search
Time User Activity Comment
12:25, 25 January 2012 Yecril71pl (Talk | contribs) New thread created  
19:26, 27 January 2012 Yecril71pl (Talk | contribs) Comment text edited (they differ only in KDE approval)
16:43, 30 January 2012 AnneW (Talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to GFDL 1.2 is listed twice)

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