Theres nothing that stops you from writing your own license that states
something along the lines of 'you can distribute these documents however
you like. we don't care. don't bother us about them.'...
IMHO, neither GPL nor LGPL are that great.
At 02:07 PM 3/30/00 -0800, you wrote:
>But that kind of defeats the purpose of what we are
>doing!!!! If we LGPL the code we might as well do the
>same to the docs!! Also, if we, the members of the
>project, write & maintain the docs then the docs are
>copyrighted by us...... and thus it is illegal to
>publish them without our premission anyway. The FDL
>is not just an extra layer of protection, but it also
>allows specific rights of the end-user to copy the
>docs without getting permission each and every time.
>
>Drew Northup, N1XIM
>
>--- Julian Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At 07:52 AM 3/21/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Also, since the GNU FDL was released recently, I'm
>> >thinking we should use this for our docs. I have
>> >not reviewed it yet though; comments? Other
>> >open source types of license preferences?
>>
>> Make em public domain. If someone wants to publish
>> them for profit (in say
>> a printed, nicely bound format), then I wouldn't
>> object. It'll promote the
>> use of the product, which has to be the main aim,
>> surely!
>>
>> Jules
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://im.yahoo.com
>
>
