WWN license issue

[Ian Macfarlane]

For what it's worth, I would prefer, in general, if it were at least
GPLv2 or later, but considering that this is just a newsletter and not
source code, I don't care that much :)

To be honest, I think this it makes more sense under a Creative
Commons license (probably the simple Creative Commons Attribution
one).

All the old ones at least should be changed to point to the GPLv2
license however, even if it is GPL2+ rather than GPL2-only.

On 1/15/08, Jeremy Newman <jnewman at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> I'll patch it so it points to the GPL v2 licence, unless someone feels
> there is a reason it needs to be v3.
>
> Zachary Goldberg wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2008 9:58 AM, Ian Macfarlane <ian at ianmacfarlane.com> wrote:
> >> At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest
> >> http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
> >>
> >> "All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original
> >> authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> >> License, version 2.0. "
> >>
> >> However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of
> >> course is now the GPLv3 license text.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version
> >> 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options
> >> are preferable).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > for the record: I have no personal preference on the license.
> > Whatever the WineHQ admins decide on the issue is fine with me.
> >
>