Difference between revisions of "Talk:License"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
− | Yes, the confusion should be cleared up | + | Yes, the confusion should be cleared up. The note at the bottom of this editing page says that the GNU Free Documentation License is used, altho elsewhere in this wiki it suggests it is not decided. Clarity is needed. |
Fred Swartz | Fred Swartz | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Bruno, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Can you nail down this license issue with the wiki. I want to make sure everyone feels comfortable with adding content to the wiki and knowing their work won't be exploited. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thanks ! | ||
+ | |||
+ | John |
Revision as of 21:14, 7 April 2005
I feel pretty unhappy that this Wiki appears not have a licence, despite a claim to the contrary that brought me to this page. What's wrong with the standard licence?
Roger Williams
Yes, the confusion should be cleared up. The note at the bottom of this editing page says that the GNU Free Documentation License is used, altho elsewhere in this wiki it suggests it is not decided. Clarity is needed.
Fred Swartz
Bruno,
Can you nail down this license issue with the wiki. I want to make sure everyone feels comfortable with adding content to the wiki and knowing their work won't be exploited.
Thanks !
John