On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > > I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This > > accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free. > > I have equivocated on its freeness before, with respect to clauses 2a) > and 2c). I apologize. I didn't remember reading that when I wrote my message. I did not mean to misrepresent your opinion or anyone else's, only to represent my own. > Also, I see no reason the author can't dual-license under the GNU GPL > and and the GNU FDL. It might be easier to get the publisher to go > along with that if they've already bought into the rhetoric that the > GNU GPL is an "inappropriate" license for printed documentation. The author asked for a recommendation. I offered one which met the specified criteria. -- Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7 "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." --Douglas Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature