discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
6 Apr 2004 23:45:23 -0000
Message-Id: <20040406234520.GY22228@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
[invariant sections:]
> Yes. That's optional, and I hope that majority of
> existing documentation don't include it.
It's something to watch carefully for, at a minimum: A certain number
of authors will include such things for no better reason than having
seen it in GNU documentation.
> I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated
> criteria for licenses that are acceptable. The
> problems stated with FDL though important are not as
> much a potential problem compared to the existing
> situtation
The current situation's a bit fluid in part because opinions among LDP
staff on the matter are, actually, fairly diverse. (I read a sampling
of archived posts on the topic, going way back, before posting here.)
In particular, issuing "Deriv" (forkable) licence rights to one's
personal brainchild is a difficult step, and in some cases I've balked
at doing that, myself. (I don't speak for LDP.)
There has been quite a tangle of arguments and counterarguments on the
subject. I'm sure that has quite a lot to do with why there's not yet
an LDP policy. Most people find the subject (of licensing) a tiresome
morass, and who can blame 'em? ;->
--
Cheers, The cynics among us might say: "We laugh,
Rick Moen monkeyboys -- Linux IS the mainstream UNIX now!
####@####.#### MuaHaHaHa!" but that would be rude. -- Jim Dennis
