discuss: (in addition) Re: LDP Licence
Subject:
(in addition) Re: LDP Licence
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
23 Dec 2003 09:54:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1072173212.18318.100.camel@mysticchild>
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 01:38, Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> I'm pretty much in total agreement with you here. Let's do a
> side-by-side comparison of the LDP 2.0 with the proposed revisions Rick
> Moen offered (they can be found here:
> http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law), and seriously consider
> making a version we can be happy with. As I mentioned in my earlier
> mail, I think it would benefit everyone if we updated our license page
> with an accurate list of recommended licenses, and explain the
> differences (or direct them to where they can find those differences).
Okay, just did the side-by-side comparison. It's not that I object to
the changes - I think they're great. But now, since that was relatively
easy and the changes seemed fine, I now want to compare that to what
Creative Commons has. I'm also going to head over to gnu.org and look
on their license page again (I don't recall the URL but they also have
some interesting information about the subject and varieties).
Once I see how it compares to other open source document licenses, I'll
have a better idea of what the LDP license seems to be lacking. David
Lawyer pointed out some useful information we should keep in mind, and I
agree with him: it might need to be a 3.0 LDP license, and may need
more to it. Let me do my homework and I'll get back to you!
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)
