discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.####
Date:
11 Apr 2004 15:55:30 -0000
Message-Id: <20040411155359.GA1930@smeagol>
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 08:24:25AM -0700, Thomas Zimmerman wrote:
> I think the list does need to be made, as there are documents that are
> "lost" because of the license and vanishing authors.
Agreed. Would you like to make this list?
> bit-rot just like web links. How ... biological.) Taking a look at the
> LDP manifesto, the suggestion that "documents be modifiable" should be
> much stronger--documentation that can't be worked with quickly becomes
> worth much less. (the License Requirements section is out of date, the
> GFDL is out, and _not_ recommended because of it's GPL
> incompatibility.)
Incorrect. The GFDL is still accepted for new documents with the LDP.
--
Emma Jane Hogbin
[[ 416 417 2868 ][ www.xtrinsic.com ]]
