[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)
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:10:32 +1000 (EST)
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 1 Oct 1999 02:10:48 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <dbe9v.A.lQD.ogB93@murphy>
On 29 Sep, Guylhem Aznar wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:04:54AM +1000, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> We'd just explicitly add this to the license (see David's post on
> modified version)
IF it's only intended to apply to documents that were written using that
license, I've no problem with it. I would actively discourage people
from using it if asked, but that's ok too.
It's still the authors choice.
It doesn't solve any problems with existing documentation though.
I believe the LDP should:
- state what its principles are in terms of minimum licensing
- provide a model license that is an example of those principles
- as a convenience to prospective authors, list other licenses that
conform to the LDP licensing principles.
I like Debians' approach to licensing, even if it did ruffle KDE/Qt
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org