On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 12:57 +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 6/19/11 11:25 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
Could you suggest another description that we could use that would be
more appropriate for us?
I think that we should use "free software license, preferably copyleft"
Just "free software license" linked to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html would exactly match with the
+1 (since that seems to be the accepted policy might as well keep it
sweet and simple)
RMS quote on http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/ and would
include both free-permissive licenses (Apache) and free-copyleft
licenses (LGPL).
Anything else would be a new interpretation of the original statement
and would exclude (or discourage) some free software from the extensions
repository, but of course
the Steering Committee is free to decide on
the policy of the LibreOffice websites
-1 (but that is a different subject)
regardless of RMS's quotes from
months ago.
Regards,
Andrea.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/website/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.