[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal

>OpenContent licenses are good for companies, but I don't think they
>are good for LDP. And I agree with David where he said that new
>authors shouldn't worry with licenses. I want to write, to work, and
>not to worry if the license I chose will forbid *ME*, the author, to
>donate my work to another person to use in his document, book, guide,
>HOWTO, whatever. 

This is exactly why I think we should "also" allow the open content
licenses. I would love to see the Redhat or Suse documentation part of the



<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 ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org