Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> Deb Richardson wrote:
>
> > The spectrum from "free" to "non-free" is a wide one. All I want to do
> > is set a point on that spectrum where anything "less free" is not
> > allowable into the OSWG documentation set, and anything on the "more
> > free" side is. This is just our opportunity to set the baseline level
> > of allowable freedom.
>
> This led me to speculate on someone wanting to do the reverse, license
> a document as open for online use but reserving the right to be paid for
> print publication. I don't think I'd do this, but I do think authors
> should be able to do it without being excluded from open doc projects.
Um, I have to disagree - one of the things that makes the LDP valuable is
the fact that it is printable. If you wanted to work on the GNOME project,
but not allow your software to be included in salable distributions
without your permission they wouldn't accept the software. The same reasoning
went into the LDP. I can agree with a license that doesn't allow for
derivative works, but not with one that restricts sale of works.
Zonker
--
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible" Frank Zappa
Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marketing and Vendor Relations
LinuxMall.com --> is The Linux Superstore
Phone: 303-693-3321 Fax: 303-699-2793
