Why don't you guys just select the OPL and leave it at that?
<Signature>
<GoodBye>This email was sent by Poet/Joshua Drake </Goodbye>
http://3513150318/
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
</Signature>
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Deb Richardson wrote:
> > Or to keep things simple, you could ensure that the license conditions
> > refer to the text forming the semantic content, rather than any
> > meta-text in the document.
>
> Good idea.
>
> > I'd add:
> >
> > 3) must allow translations into other languages.
> >
> > as a mandatory freedom.
>
> Hm. Is this allowed in the majority of currently available licenses? I
> think it's a good idea, but I want to restrict the number of allowable
> licenses as little as possible.
>
> > I think it very important that the agreed list of baseline
> > document freedoms be captured somewhere and published with
> > the list of complying licenses. It is the baseline that will be most
> > important when in future we're trying to determine if a license is
> > appropriate or not.
>
> When we come to an agreement, I'll write it up and publish it to the
> list for review. I'll need help compiling the list of
> currently-available licenses. I will, of course, add a page to the
> website containing that outlines this information.
>
> - deb
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
