[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
- To: Richard Stallman <>
- Subject: Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
- From: Poet/Joshua Drake <>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
- cc: , , ,
- Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-Message-ID: <BEAy3C.A.m_C.3bme5@murphy>
>The OpenContent license as I last checked it did not qualify as a free
>license, so I hope you won't include it in your list. (If you think
>it has changed and I should recheck it, please let me know.)
You are correct, within your definition of free it does not qualify.
>The Open Publication license does qualify as a free license *if* the
>options A and B are *not* used. Please ask people to refrain from
>using these options if they use the Open Publication license.
I will not do so. I think the Open Publication is a good license. I think
that option B (but not A) is an excellent option for corporations and
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
<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