[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)
- Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)
- From: "David Wheeler" <>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:38:58 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Donnie Barnes <firstname.lastname@example.org> "Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)" (Sep 28, 10:24am)
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 28 Sep 1999 19:39:32 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <LUG8UB.A.dHF.0lR83@murphy>
Donnie Barnes wrote:
>Pardon me, but you seem to have the word "manifesto" confused with "license".
Perhaps; I think the problem is that the web page is confusing.
I'm quoting "http://www.linuxdoc.org/copyright.html". The first thing
it says is "Please read the license carefully--", and it
says that it is the "Linux Documentation Project Copying License".
It sure LOOKS like a license.
>AFAIK there is *no* LDP "license", and it is my goal to
>keep it that way. Well, there certainly can be a suggested one, but
>I don't want any required one.
Okay. Actually, we agree on that.
In practice, the various documents include their own (different) licenses,
but the top-level web pages make it appear that something else is going on.
That top-level web page should state that "all LDP documents are released
under the terms of their own license".
>Whoa! Watch your quoting, pal. I didn't write any of the above
Mea culpa! I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said.
My apologies; no offense intended.
--- David A. Wheeler
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org