On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 04:34:57PM -0500, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > the other 50% is a nightmare --- I suggest allowing a polyglot of > ill-conceived roll-yer-own licences is tantamount to software patents: > Future developers/integrators/authors/users cannot do anything without > a lawyer present to ensure what they do is actually legal.
Personally I never use such non GPL software because : 1. I know I can't take it's code and merge it with some other GPL software 2. I don't want to deal with a zillion licenses > For example: The Linux Documentation Project is illegal. I have (...) > in violation of copyright law because it distributes copyright > material. QED. Non free material is distributed with the authorisation from the original author, which owns the copyrights (if he didn't sell them of course) And the material we distribute is already released under an open license. > is flexible. If I want to explain my licence, I can say "Go to > opencontent.org and read Option B" --- even if there are 4 or 12 > options, it lends consistency to the other clauses and the variations > are manageable. You'd rather use the GFDL ; it doesn't have any non free clause. -- Guylhem P. Aznar http://www.linuxdoc.org guylhem \@/ metalab.unc.edu http://metalab.unc.edu/guylhem "They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ----- Benjamin Franklin
