On 10/23/07, John Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
> >
> > Part of the question is how do we:
> > 1) Encourage contributions to documentation and
> > 2) Leverage that documentation to make the software more widespread.
> >
> >
> I don't see how a license can do eith
MJ,
> Creative Commons licenses are complicated and contain lawyerbombs -
> things which are vague and/or confusing and/or CC has ignored requests
> to explain. I don't see the benefit over a BSD-style documentation
> licence if that's what's wanted.
Could you be a little more specific on this?
Hi,
Chris Travers wrote:
>
> Part of the question is how do we:
> 1) Encourage contributions to documentation and
> 2) Leverage that documentation to make the software more widespread.
>
>
I don't see how a license can do either of these.
For #1, I think the critical thing is to make it simp
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Which Creative Commons license were you thinking?
>>>
>> Creative Commons licenses are complicated and contain lawyerbombs -
>> things which are vague and/or confusing and/or CC has ignored requests
>> to explain. I don
Hi Joshua;
On 10/23/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the deal. I don't like the idea of someone being able to close
> and print the ledgersmb documentation. It is really that simple and
> thus I don't think the BSD license is a good thing here.
What exactly do you have in
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:21:23 +0100
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Or perhaps the Creative Commons?
> >
> > Which Creative Commons license were you thinking?
>
> Creative Commons licenses are complicated and contain lawyerbombs -
> things which are vague and/or confusing and/or CC has ig
Hi MJ,
Thank you for your comments.
> The FDL is not merely potentially unFree - it's always unFree because
> the current FDL itself must be an invariant section in the work.
I am not sure I understand. Licenses are generally/usually invariant
anyway, and IMO, should always be included in the
"Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I actually think I would prefer the Open Publication License:
> >
> > http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
>
> Hmm Suppose we standardize on the OPL with neither option. [...]
The OPL is tr
