discuss: LDP Licence: a post-2.0 modest proposal
Subject:
Re: LDP Licence: a post-2.0 modest proposal
From:
jdd ####@####.####
Date:
22 Dec 2003 11:54:33 -0000
Message-Id: <3FE6DB6B.2040100@dodin.net>
Rick Moen wrote:
> Despite people being pretty sick of of licence / copyright matters
> (I think), and what seems some unpleasant history, I'm hoping LDP will
> consider a modest revision to LDPL 2.0. Why? Because:
Rick, you are making an incredible work. I agree on all your statements
(and like specially the upper case remark at the end).
however, taking this into account is really writting a 3.0 licence and
should not be done without extreme care.
like you seems to be, I'm not at all secure about what licence to use. I
moved recently my HOWTO from undetermined specific licence to LGPL after
asking here.
now I probably would prefere creative common ones. these ones seems very
carefully written and LDP could probably recommend one (not to reinvent
the wheel)
to speak on a functional way, all the ldp document should be classified
in two packages (symbolicly, by flags, not on the disk):
* documents that can be given to an other author if unmaintained
* others documents.
authors should warned that if they document fall in the second class, if
any attempt of reaching the autor fail for a reasonable amount of time,
the document will be placed in the unmaintained diretory and soon removed.
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
Chanteurs toulousains:
http://chantezmaintenant.free.fr
