[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
- Subject: Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
- From: Dan York <>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:53:06 -0400
- CC: ,
- Organization: Linuxcare
- Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-Message-ID: <t06g6C.A.SrD.NFKg5@murphy>
I've waded through the rather lengthy licensing discussion that
occured while I was away and not really able to read email.
I'll be interested to see the results of the comments sent in
from where it has been published on the web page.
My only comment is this... as a newcomer to the LDP process, I
would not want to have to figure out what license I should use
when I'm also trying to learn the LDP process, learn DocBook, etc.
*If* a decision is made to support multiple licenses (such as
OPL, GFDL, etc.), I would suggest that *one* of them be the
"preferred" license, perhaps the modified Boilerplate. *That*
license could be in the template files that are provided to new
That way new authors who don't necessarily understand the nuances
of the licenses - and don't really care, they just want to help
by writing documents - those authors can just start writing.
However, if other authors want to use a different license, that
is certainly fine and up to them.
Again, this is *if* multiple licenses are supported. I merely
raise the suggestion.
I look forward to the continued discussion and resolution.
Dan York, Linuxcare, Inc.
1-603-264-0129 mobile, 603-268-0691 tel, 603-268-0103 fax
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org