discuss: licence problems
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
29 Sep 2008 16:35:12 +0100
Message-Id: <20080929150243.GB2363@davespc>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 08:01:05PM +0200, jdd wrote:
>
> don't forget either that few documents (proposed to us) are important
> enough for us to have to examine them on this subject, and that
> including unappreciated licence can lead of kind of problem we have
> now: we should never have accepted documents without licence...
In the 10 years I've been involved with LDP I don't think that LDP
ever permitted acceptance of any documents without a license, except
for internal docs like the Manifesto. And even when people were using
the "default" LDP license, they were supposed to mention that in the
HOWTO. The docs without a license were likely accepted in error.
Someone might want to contact the authors to add a license but my
sampling of them indicates that most of them are quite old (over 10
years old) and thus may be both obsolete and have AWOL :-) authors.
David Lawyer
