[Foundation-l] Licensing update: Final steps

geni geniice at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 22:30:37 UTC 2009

2009/6/11 Jim Redmond <jim at scrubnugget.com>:
> 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

I hope so but isn't something that needs to be done before implementation.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list