Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal

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

>The OpenContent license as I last checked it did not qualify as a free
>license, so I hope you won't include it in your list.  (If you think
>it has changed and I should recheck it, please let me know.)

You are correct, within your definition of free it does not qualify.

>
>The Open Publication license does qualify as a free license *if* the
>options A and B are *not* used.  Please ask people to refrain from
>using these options if they use the Open Publication license.

I will not do so. I think the Open Publication is a good license. I think
that option B (but not A) is an excellent option for corporations and
individuals alike.

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

-- 
--
<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