[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Manifesto License Requirements (was Re: Manifesto / policyissues)
> * Content modification must be allowed, although non-modifiable
> parts are permitted
I don't agree with this. It conflicts with the non-free section
that has been agreed on.
> * Redistribution, both commercial and noncommercial, must be allowed
> * The license must propagate to derived works
This also conflicts with the non-free section we agreed on.
>The basic requirement of allowing anyone to make copies and distribute
>the documents is not even mentioned in the draft (even for docs which
>would go into our "free" section).
> Licenses that do not meet these recommendations are allowed, but
> documents employing these licenses are archived separately under
>We can't just allow any license (or no license). Anything we accept
>should have a license which permits copying and distribution of the
>doc by anyone.
Electronic distribution yes. Commercial Paper distribution no. If the
I guess what I don't understand is why we can not just say, for the
document to placed in the free section it must adhere to the OpenSource
Definitiaon of Open Source.
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org