Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal

[Poet/Joshua Drake <poet@linuxports.com>]

>OpenContent licenses are good for companies, but I don't think they
>are good for LDP. And I agree with David where he said that new
>authors shouldn't worry with licenses. I want to write, to work, and
>not to worry if the license I chose will forbid *ME*, the author, to
>donate my work to another person to use in his document, book, guide,
>HOWTO, whatever. 

This is exactly why I think we should "also" allow the open content
licenses. I would love to see the Redhat or Suse documentation part of the
LDP.

J


>
>
>Thanks,
>

-- 
--
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt	- http://www.commandprompt.com	</COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC.	- http://www.opendocs.org	</PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts 	- http://www.linuxports.com     </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP		- http://www.linuxdoc.org	</WEBMASTER>
--
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," 
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. 
--


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