discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rahul ####@####.####
Date:
7 Apr 2004 00:10:54 -0000
Message-Id: <20040407001027.49055.qmail@web8004.mail.in.yahoo.com>
--- Rick Moen ####@####.#### wrote: > 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.
very true
>
> > 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.
Yes. Just because you give the right doesnt mean
anybody would just that document and misuse it. For
example in LDP even when the documentation allows
people to simply take over many do email the original
author and let him know that they are doing that.
The culture isnt reflected in the license but its
actively enforced. I think I read about that somewhere
is ESR's papers *after* realising it.
regards
Rahul
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more.
Go to: http://in.insurance.yahoo.com/licspecial/index.html
