Deb,
What's your reasoning for disallowing distribution of derivative works?
Is it just that the licenses for this sort of thing are young and
perhaps haven't yet been properly worked through?
-john.
Deb Richardson wrote:
>
> Since the CVS is ready, it's time for us to discuss licensing issues
> regarding what documentation should be allowed in the OSWG documentation
> repository.
>
> In my opinion, for the sake of simplicity, any documentation having the
> following characteristics should be allowed:
>
> 1) it can be freely reformatted
> 2) it can be freely distributed
>
> Beyond that, I think it should be up to the copyright holder(s) as to
> what specific license they decide to use. For example, if the copyright
> holder(s) want their documentation to be freely modifiable, they can
> choose a license that allows for that.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> If this is okay with the majority of folks, we should probably compile a
> list of licenses that have those characteristics. If you know of such a
> license, send a note with a URL.
>
> - deb
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Blair author/software engineer/linux
specialist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "it's easier to fix UNIX than to use
Windows"
