Re: Endorsements (was: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD)
On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 01:05 , Branden Robinson wrote:
Here are my current thoughts on Endorsements:
Well, this'll teach me to read all my mail before responding...
I think I misunderstood the top of your last post.
3) [...] Endorsers may wish to communicate to the world (via a
Web Page),
blanket permission to retain their endorsement under certain
circumstances [...] However, such communications are outside the
scope of the DFCL.
Would people add these to the copyright notice, like they add
exceptions to link with OpenSSL today? If so, I guess those
could always be trimmed, too.
4) Anyone, not just the copyright holder of the document in question,
can sign on as an endorser to a version of any DFCL-licensed document.
Whether their endorsement is listed is up to the distributor (see 2
above).
I like this. It'd mean that, for example, O'Reilly could have
technical reviewers endorse a document.
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation.
This edition of $DOCUMENT is distributed under the Debian Free
Content License and is endorsed by the following parties. The
absence of an endorsement by any party, including the copyright
holder, may indicate that this edition does not meet with that
party's approval, and is not representative of that party.
I notice the disclaimer of warranty is missing. Especially when
people endorse a document, this would seem quite important.
Possibly this was just omitted for the example?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: