Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is the response I got from John Hobby wrt the two MetaPost manuals. > (He also sent the sources, for an older version of LaTeX; I'll get them > working with a modern LaTeX and forward both the new and old version.) > Are his conditions fine, or do I need to ask for more clarification? > (It seems that he gives conditions as preferences, rather than legal > requirements.)
It sounds like he doesn't want to go to the trouble of writing up a license. In that case, you should probably just suggest a license. Unfortunately, some of his goals are incompatible with it being free (no competing versions, no translations or excerpts without permission). You could try to impress upon him that these things are unlikely to happen anyway, but I wouldn't get into a big argument. As for which license to suggest, I would suggest the GPL. That gives the document the maximum amount of protection without rendering it unfree. The licenses specificly for documentation tend to be less protective or too protective. You could suggest them, but then you might get assimilated by the all encompassing flamewar on DFSG-free documents. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
