discuss: database and developer.linuxdoc.org
Subject:
Re: database and developer.linuxdoc.org
From:
Poet/Joshua Drake ####@####.####
Date:
31 Jul 2001 15:41:59 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107310840001.9345-100000@commandprompt.com>
>> without author consent). If I get the author to explicitly agree to LDPL
>> Option B, should the database record say "LDPL" or "Other"?
>
>Use LDP for any of the LDP style licenses, please. But please, if
>you're going to recommend a license recommend the GFDL or, failing
Or you could not recommend the GFDL and use the OPL which is a cleaner,
more direct license. The GFDL has problems that even David Lawyer and I
agree on.
>that, OPL w/o options A or B. The ability to find a new maintainer for
>abandoned docs will prevent us from getting back into the situation
>we're trying to get out of -- lots of unmaintanied docs.
>
>> Do we want values that reflect the options used or should the database
>> just represent the basic license type? The latter would make the database
>> less useful because you'd still have to read the document to see what
>> exact restrictions, if any, were applied. I recommend that if there are
>> formal, explicit options to the license, as there are with the LDPL, that
>> the database interface reflect those options as choices in the drop-down
>> box for the license field.
>
>That's why I'm trying to get everyone who is willing to move to the
>GFDL. It really simplifies things for the poor slob who tries to
>manage the collection, allows new maintainers, and keeps the source
>around.
>
>
--
--
<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.
--
