Re: encoding of type_name for e.g. g_register_type_static()

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:01 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:

> erk. what's unsatisfactory, or what needs clearance with the license?

Well, the problem is that for a long time, we had a note on the
GTK+ documentation saying "the license will be something similar
to the following", but we never actually said "the license *is*
the following". 

And then we never shipped the license with GTK+ where we are
shipping the docs. (Did we fix that? I'm not sure.)

And we never made it clear that the inline docs in the GTK+
source code fall under that license rather than the LGPL.

So, it's somewhat questionable that everybody that has contributed 
docs to GTK+ has contributed it under the GTK+ documentation 
license.

Also, the license is a one-off. I think it's a very reasonable
one-off ... better than a lot of the standard licenses, but it's not
something that people are going to recognize, and it's never
really been legally cleared. (It's based on 
something that Dave Shummanfang wrote for the Red Hat docs
years ago, but isn't exactly that.)

I think what we basically need to do is:

 - Dig up the license text, put it *in* the docs obviously
 
 - Clarify clearly in the GTK+ distribution that the inline 
   docs are covered under that license

 - Ask publically for people to object if they've contributed
   docs and thought it was under a different license.

Regards,
						Owen