Re: Updating the OpenContent license

[Guylhem Aznar <guylhem@metalab.unc.edu>]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 04:34:57PM -0500, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> the other 50% is a nightmare --- I suggest allowing a polyglot of
> ill-conceived roll-yer-own licences is tantamount to software patents:
> Future developers/integrators/authors/users cannot do anything without
> a lawyer present to ensure what they do is actually legal.

Personally I never use such non GPL software because :

 1. I know I can't take it's code and merge it with some other GPL
software

 2. I don't want to deal with a zillion licenses

> For example: The Linux Documentation Project is illegal.  I have
(...)
> in violation of copyright law because it distributes copyright
> material. QED.

Non free material is distributed with the authorisation from the
original author, which owns the copyrights (if he didn't sell them of
course)

And the material we distribute is already released under an open
license.

> is flexible.  If I want to explain my licence, I can say "Go to
> opencontent.org and read Option B" --- even if there are 4 or 12
> options, it lends consistency to the other clauses and the variations
> are manageable.

You'd rather use the GFDL ; it doesn't have any non free clause.

-- 
Guylhem P. Aznar                               http://www.linuxdoc.org
guylhem \@/ metalab.unc.edu             http://metalab.unc.edu/guylhem
"They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -----  Benjamin Franklin


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org