discuss: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.
Subject:
Re: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.
From:
Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
Date:
17 Jun 2005 17:02:15 -0000
Message-Id: <42B30214.4080106@redhat.com>
Hi
>Are there any substantive objections to my idea? We can put
>documents out saying that they may not be modified without
>permission of the author, EXCEPT that the author grants LDP
>permission to use the content to create further versions under
>the same kind of license. Then the author of the new version has
>control of the new material in that version.
>
>The idea is for authors to give LDP the essential permission to
>make new versions in advance, so that we don't have the issue of
>how diligently to track down authors of abandoned documents, and
>we can't be stymied in creating new versions by an intransigent
>author.
>
>Perhaps some authors would be content if the license said no
>changes without LDP permission. Can we ask whoever brought up
>the original idea?
>
>
Personally I think we should just call the creative commons attribute
share like license the LDP recommended one. The problem with other
ideas is that noone in this list a lawyer. Who is going to draft this
license and review it to make sure that its legally strong? (aka show me
the code)
regards
Rahul
