On 4/13/12 11:00 AM, Meho R. wrote: > On Friday 13 April 2012 08:34:08 Peter Linnell wrote: >> >> As the original doc writer and selector for the docs license, I did a >> careful survey of available licenses. >> >> CC did not exist at the time and none of them still do not reflect my >> exact intent with the license. >> >> I chose OPL, as it did two things: >> >> Permitted free distribution and alteration. >> >> Prevented a commercial interest from benefiting from our benevolent >> efforts aka reprinting commercially our docs without permission. My >> desire was that any documentation commercially or otherwise would >> benefit the project. >> >> That it is not free enough for Debian legal folks is their issue, not >> mine. Docs are not code and should not be licensed under the same kind >> of copyright/license. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Peter > > Actually, if there was an issue, it would be yours, Peter, not Debian's :-) > They have strict rules which apply to every piece of software/doc and if you > want your app/doc included, you must comply to their rules, not they to > yours. If you'd rather not having your app/doc provided by default in one of > the most important Linux distros, it is your choice and your problem.
Sounds fine to me - we don't need to please Debian or any other distro. (despite malex's wonderful efforts over the years). Craig
