discuss: new documentation license
Subject:
Re: new documentation license
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
24 Nov 2003 21:36:22 -0000
Message-Id: <1069709753.20351.14.camel@mysticchild>
Hi Andy, and thanks for your input!
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 07:20, Andy Oram wrote:
> So far, I see nothing Linux-specific, LDP-specific, or even
> computing-specific about the requirements people have been
> discussing on this thread.
>
> If you want to allow free distribution but prohibit
> commercial use, and allow changes so long as they're shared
> under the same license, you can use the Creative Commons's
> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/).
>
> If you want to allow commercial use (which I support,
> because it means Linux vendors can include your
> documentation in their distributions without worry) use the
> Attribution-ShareAlike License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/).
I like the second license better, for the same reasons. How does the
OPL compare to it, since I've already recommended that to a few
authors? It seemed relatively the same, but it couldn't hurt to make
sure!
In addition, thanks Randy, for your feedback regarding the licensing and
processes/procedures. You added a lot of clarity to the subject for me!
I also agree with Mary Gardiner's comments about the negative impact of
advertising in someone else's document - I hadn't even thought about
that, but I can see how that would upset some folks.
I still think it would be great to provide an LDP license with the same
conditions, but I guess where it comes from doesn't necessarily matter,
as long as it's doing its job.
Tab
>
> There are other possibilities too.
>
> Andy
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
--
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)
