Chris Fedde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I now agree with Nate's proposal of several days ago. Copyright should
> be unambiguously granted to some legal agent such as YAS.
I agree with this too, as you might guess.
I'd also like to bring up an important issue that everyone hates, but
should be discussed.
If we're to start a massive PDP effort, I think we should discuss
licensing. Using the existing Perl license (GPL|Artistic), can certainly
work, but it's not the best choice for documentation.
I suggest that we use either:
"Open Publication License, Version 1, no options exercised"
or
GNU Free Documentation License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)
As you might guess, I favor the GNU FDL, but not just because of my day
job. I like it because of the front-cover and back-cover texts, that we
as a project can write, and ensure that publishers who print versions of
it let people know where the work came from.
The perlfaq already appears to be under (GPL|Artistic), so the discussion
there is likely closed. However, if new documentation is to be developed,
I suggest we think about the licensing question.
I know everyone hates discussing licensing, but I'd like to open the
discussion about it. Copyrightable work inevitably brings the discussion
regardless, so we might as well have it sooner rather than later.
-- bkuhn
PGP signature
