discuss: gnu fdl
Subject:
Re: gnu fdl
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
14 Nov 2003 01:06:37 -0000
Message-Id: <1068771968.20384.15.camel@mysticchild>
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:12, rahul wrote:
> In case you have any doubt about this, RMS mailed me once about a document
> that i had written which was licensed under FDL and told me that it was a
> violation of the license if a copy itself wasnt included. He also
> specifically told me that a link to the license is not sufficient. My LDP FAQ
> is also affected by this. If I include a copy it becomes more than the actual
> content itself. I am thinking of relicensing it under something different.
> Any ideas?
I think that's been a drawback for many people - the sheer size!
> if nobody suggests any particular license Tabatha please relicense it under
> GPL for the next revision. oops! should i include a copy of the GPL then?
Another option might be the OPL
(www.opencontent.org/openpub/index.shtml). With their license, it's
acceptable to provide the URL in the copyright, and it doesn't make
restrictions on invariant sections, but has some very standard
requirements on modified works that might satisfy most people.
Have a look! I'd kind of like to know, since we ask authors to include
copyrights and licenses, and are often asked to make recommendations.
Thanks,
Tab
--
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
