[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Preferred license for documentation

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:51:22AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>  * Open Publication License; debian-legal archives show
>    that it may have been considered free at one time but now is
>    questionable.  Can anyone shed some light there?

As I recall, the OPL has a thing equivalent to the GNU FDL's Cover
Texts.  The GNU FDL's Cover Texts are immutable and unremovable, and so
are the OPL's.

>  * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike[1] seems to be endorsed by some,
>    though I couldn't find much discussion.  Thoughts?
> [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode

Why don't you post the license text in a new thread and we can sink our
teeth into it?

Now that I've relieved myself of my LPPL analysis obligation, I'm ready
for a new challenge.  It may help distract me from the GNU FDL
discussion, which I think Bruce would like to see.  :-P

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      If encryption is outlawed, only
branden@debian.org                 |      outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpZEATs7Yd2J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: