discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
12 Apr 2004 04:50:48 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040411224642.02434590@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 14:15 4/11/2004, Rick Moen wrote:
>Thank you. I've basically had my say on the matter. Forkable documents
>should be preferred: They are. Where practical, non-forkable ones
>should get replaced as ones better-suited arrive: They do.
>
>Remaining details are matters that busy LDP volunteers can improve over
>time, as they have time and energy.
I'll happily sign off on that as well.
On a tangential note, it appears that I blindly (e.g. out of ignorance)
copied/pasted an LDP template for a DocBook XML HOWTO and used that to
start the documents I have posted at:
http://www.simpaticus.com/linux
Despite my previous interest in preventing modification without
authorization on that kind of document, and also despite my recent decision
to move to the Creative Commons' Attribution-ShareAlike license, it appears
that the documents I currently post online are licensed under the GFDL 1.1.
<grin> Outsmarted myself, even.
Can anyone point me to a doc licensed with the CC-BY-SA so I can use that
as an example to properly change the text of my licenses?
Thanks,
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
