A license should be worded 'Please apply for permission to use
in a commercial app' then?
THat seems reaosnable to add. COmments from the rest?
> Well my only concern is fly-by-nights trying to make a quick buck. I have
> no problem with Stronghold incorporating some of the material.
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:
>
> > So this brings up some issues. The SH docs right now include
> > some text from the apache docs, but most of it is a rewrite. If you
> > restrict the new docs for a commercial use then does commercial
> > documentation have to be a clean room effort?
> >
> > > No better way to screw up discussions than to mention licensing. I don't
> > > think the code license is appropriate for high quality documentation. Our
> > > current manual, while extensive, is not "book ready". But it's possible
> > > that this project would produce something which is book ready. We do not
> > > want someone to be able to print it and reap profits off our work...
> > > unlike software which is high overhead (nobody would buy from a
> > > fly-by-night, they look for support, etc.), books don't usually come with
> > > support contracts.
> > >
> > > Just food for thought. The documentation must be free, but it could have
> > > commercial restrictions added to it.
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
> > President FAX: 510-986-8777
> > C2Net
> > http://www.c2.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
--
Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
President FAX: 510-986-8777
C2Net
http://www.c2.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
