[Pkg-octave-devel] Copyright notice in web site

[Rafa Rodríguez Galván]

I liked the CCPL Attribution-ShareAlike, though I didn't know that it
was explicitly calified as free by the FSF. I've searched at fsf.org and
found in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OtherWorks.
"For other kinds of works [not software documentation], we
recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons."

I think we should use this license.


El vie, 15-04-2005 a las 16:41 +0200, Rafael Laboissiere escribió:
> * Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org> [2005-04-15 16:14]:
> 
> > 1) Do everybody agree with putting the material under the OpenContent
> >    Licence?
> 
> I checked gnu.org: OPL is considered as a non-free license.  However th=
e
> Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode) qualifies as 
> free.  Should we use the CCPL?
>  
-- 
J. Rafael Rodríguez Galván.
OSLUCA -- Oficina de Software Libre, Universidad de Cádiz.
http://softwarelibre.uca.es