[Mono-docs-list] Monkeyguide license?
Hector E. Gomez Morales
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:54:54 -0600
Well I thought that monkeyguide was too in MIT X11 license like monodoc,
seeing this situation I think it will be better that all the
documentation is under one license be it X11 or GPL FDA. I have some
unfinished docs for monkeyguide so it will be good for me to know the
consensus on this.
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 17:07, John Luke wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 17:53 -0500, Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 14:36, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I had the impression that we had agreed to use the MIT X11 license
> > > for the Monkeyguide instead of the GNU FDL, is that correct?
> > >
> > > (the GNU FDL not being free documentation and all that).
> > >
> > > Miguel.
> > Sort of. IIRC, the license was originally unspecified; lots was
> > written, but not everyone documented (a) what they wrote, and (b) what
> > license they had written it under. I know that some of what I wrote I
> > contributed to the Public Domain (interop.html).
> > This issue was last brought up in July 2003. My recollection was that
> > this was never fully settled; it was pointed out the GNU FDL was listed
> > as the license for some documentation, that X11/BSD would be preferable,
> > and that we'd have to talk to each of the contributors to see if they'd
> > be willing to re-license. I don't see anything remotely like each
> > contributor explicitly stating what license they released their work
> > under, but my email archive only goes back to February 4, 2002.
> > BTW, monodoc explicitly mentions that any contributions are licensed
> > under X11, so we know at least know what all new API documentation
> > should be licensed under.
> > - Jon
> I think what Jon summarized is correct as far as I recall. Everything I
> have contributed can be licensed under X11.
> Mono-docs-list maillist - Monofirstname.lastname@example.org