[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)
- To:
- Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)
- From:
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:10:32 +1000 (EST)
-
In-Reply-To: <19990929110847.B926@victis.oeil.qc.ca>
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 1 Oct 1999 02:10:48 -0000
- Resent-From:
- Resent-Message-ID: <dbe9v.A.lQD.ogB93@murphy>
- Resent-Sender:
On 29 Sep, Guylhem Aznar wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:04:54AM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote:
> [license/ownership]
>
> 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
requirements
- 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
feathers.
Terry
--
terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org