This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug localedata/11213] localedata licencing issues
- From: "jrnieder at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:00:40 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/11213] localedata licencing issues
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-11213-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11213
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder at gmail dot com> 2012-07-15 16:00:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> If "Public Domain" like is a goal, is there any problem with CC-zero
>
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
These are matters of taste. Practically speaking, any free software
license is probably line. Any GPL-compatible license is certainly
fine.
I can't stop you, but CC-zero is a pain in the neck because its text
is very long. Is "Public Domain"-like your goal? Anyway, we've gone
off-topic for this bugtracker --- feel free to contact me and Thorsten
by email and cc some mailing list of your choice and we can guide you
through the process of choosing a license that matches your intent.
If you just want a default for locales in glibc, LGPL-2.1+ ("the license
of glibc") is probably what most people were assuming the locales already
had. A license notice can look like this:
% Copyright  2012, Chris Leonard
% This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
% it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License; either
% version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.