discuss: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
David Horton ####@####.####
Date:
5 Mar 2005 21:06:15 -0000
Message-Id: <422A1F44.1030908@speakeasy.net>
Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> The next published version of the Author Guide contains the following
> (please excuse the DocBook tags, hopefully everyone can read around them):
>
> <title>Licensing and Copyright</title>
> In order for a document to be accepted by the LDP,
> it must be licensed and conform to the <quote>LICENSE
> REQUIREMENTS</quote> section of the LDP Manifesto located at <ulink
> url="http://www.tldp.org/manifesto.html">http://www.tldp.org/manifesto.html</ulink>.
>
> <para> We recommend using the <ulink
> url="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation
> License (GFDL)</ulink>, one of the <ulink
> url="http://www.creativecommons.org/license">Creative Commons
> Licenses</ulink> (<ulink url="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/">Share-Alike</
> ulink>, or <ulink url="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">Attribution-Share-Alike</
> ulink>), or the LDP license (currently under review). The
> full text of the license must be included in your document, including
> the title and version of the license you are using. The LDP will not
> accept new documents that do not meet licensing requirements.</para>
>
> <warning>
> <title>Debian-compatible licenses</title>
> <para>Debian has branched the LDP documents into those with a <quote>free</quote> license
> and those with a <quote>non-free</quote> license. For a summary of this list, please read <ulink
> url="http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/byname">Debian License Summaries</ulink>. Currently the
> Artistic License, BSD License and the GNU General Public License are listed as <quote>free</quote>.
> These licenses will also be accepted by the LDP.</para>
> </warning>
>
>
> Please let me know if there are additional changes to be made to this
> section.
>
> thanks,
> emma
>
I noticed that Creative Commons no longer has a Share-Alike license in
version 2.0. Currently the Attribution-Share-Alike is the most
liberal-looking license they have. I wonder if Share-Alike 1.0 ran into
any problems. Perhaps we should push for Creative Commons 2.0 version
licenses and leave out 1.0. Any ideas? I'm not a lawyer, I just play
one on TV. :^)
Dave Horton
