[Foundation-l] Licensing update: Final steps

Jim Redmond jim at scrubnugget.com
Thu Jun 11 21:51:24 UTC 2009

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 15:59, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not really. In the current notice the footnote stuff isn't technically
> required. It's mostly there to provide something to point to if people
> start trying to use the more annoying features of the GFDL. To the
> average editor who wouldn't think of doing that it doesn't really
> matter.

True, but my larger point wasn't about the footnote's contents - it was that
the current notice is as short as it is because it links elsewhere for the
actual license details.  (Similarly, the current notice links elsewhere to
define "copyright" and "verifiable".)  By extension, we can keep the revised
notice relatively brief by using links to refer elsewhere for license text
and/or discussion.

Jim Redmond
jim at scrubnugget.com

More information about the foundation-l mailing list