Re: [oswg] yes, a licensing discussion

[Jason Henry Parker]

Deb Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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

You'd be best to define `freely', I think.  Some folks will resent
having things they have written subsumed by (say) Red Hat or Debian
and incorporated into some product which is then sold at a profit.
Some won't.  FWIW, I think it would be best if authors allowed this
form of redistribution (the DFSG requires it, consequently so does the
Open Source Definition).

jason
-- 
``If remarks are passed that are unpleasant in the instant, you   ____  
will see that context can make them something between droll and   \ _/__
riotously funny.  If things are said that are painfully true,      \X  /
then it is only passing truth and will change.'' -- Hannibal Lecter  \/