On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT > license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A > custom license is not something that we want to write, and especially > not without serious thought and consideration between people who have > a great deal of experience in writing licenses. The last proposed licensed I sent is *not* a "new" license. It is simply this license: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html The only change I made to it was substituting "FreeBSD Documentation Project" for "Debian Project". I don't believe the MIT license (without making changes to it to make it explicitly list only *documents* instead of *software*) or the GPL would be appropiate for many items in the web pages. But that might be just me. > Contributing to license proliferation by a license which is not > compatible with the GPL and some other free software licenses is not > something that we want to do. Please tell me how the last license I sent is incompatible to either the GPL or any other free software license. Notice I would like to know it not for the sake of this discussion, but for the sake of knowing how/if FreeBSD documentation could be reused in Debian Documentation (most of which is currently GPLd BTW). Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature