Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)

[terry@albert.animats.net]

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