David Johnson wrote: > The OSI does not approve documentation licenses, only software > licenses. But I would use the CDL anyway. It fully follows the > spirit of Open Source, and as you remarked, it is approved by the FSF.
Thanks for your feedback. Having read a number of 'open documentation' licenses, I choose the CDL, because it seemed much more practical than e.g. the GNU Free Documentation License. On the other hand, I remembered the controversy over the 'other' Apple license, so I thought a small check over here would be useful (which doesn't mean I don't trust the FSF... :). Marc Rauw. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
