> Sorry for my late response. I think it would much more readable if we do a point licenses and make sub points of licenses. The apache license for example is for me not detailed written, to make a separate point. I know that we wanted to create a glossary that includes all facts we need. but I would not list every single license. I think the best way would be to summarize the licenses and describe the differences of the type there and maybe make a short list of the most important.
Talking about linceces: this repo has a licence for "code" but not for "content", correct?
Might be better to have the content of the book be under CC-BY (or something like that) as the BSD licences we have might not be best for that.
I think we talked about that but it was never implemented.
Originally posted by @Remi-Gau in #50 (comment)
Talking about linceces: this repo has a licence for "code" but not for "content", correct?
Might be better to have the content of the book be under CC-BY (or something like that) as the BSD licences we have might not be best for that.
I think we talked about that but it was never implemented.
Originally posted by @Remi-Gau in #50 (comment)