[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
- To: Guylhem Aznar <>
- Subject: Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
- From: Poet/Joshua Drake <>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
- cc: Poet/Joshua Drake <>, David Lawyer <>, , ,
- Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:11:00 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-Message-ID: <R7b8k.A.sO.xiNe5@murphy>
>Fine with me
>> My suggestion to list links to various licenses that are acceptable.
>> 1. OpenContent
>> 2. OpenPublication
>But do not accept the infamous options.
I agree with not including Option A. But option B, is harmless (at least
IMHO) it allows complete distribution electronically, and you can print it
all you want as long as it is not for profit.
>> If anybody knows any other "documentation" licenses add them to the list.
>> We should state that if they do not like one of the above licenses then
>> they can write their own. If they write their own there should be some
>> guidelines as to what is acceptable license for documents that will be
>> included within the LDP.
>... back to the boilerplate. Better remove the "contact the LDP"
>obligation and replace it by "you should contact the LDP"
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com