<div>GPL or complient sounds good for scripts. . .not all scripts would be appropriate for the GPL (like the pynode cookbook ones) but should still be compatible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/15/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Matt Ebb</b> <<a href="mailto:matt@mke3.net">matt@mke3.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:48 AM, Tobias Regenbrecht <<a href="mailto:regenbrecht@gmx.net">regenbrecht@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>> I'm definitely not a main contributer, but I would very much appreciate it if<br>> the blender manual would get a license that is compatible with the wikibooks<br>> license.<br>><br>> This would allow it to copy from and to the "noob to pro" book, which would be<br>
> benifitial for both sides.<br><br>The reason for this entire discussion is to do with the license of<br>scripts and other code that is in the wiki. The license of the<br>documentation itself is not in question - nobody has proposed to<br>
change that from Open Content. What is in question is scripts, since<br>right now it seems that there's a blanket all-encompassing Open<br>Content license claimed for everything in the wiki, which may not be<br>so good for included scripts.<br>
<br>Matt<br>_______________________________________________<br>Bf-docboard mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>