Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > So, does it need a GPL statement in it to be usable by Linux
> > distributors? I'm guessing that it does.
>
> It needs some kind of license allowing them to distribute it, preferably to
> modify it providing they note they did so.
>
> There is a proposed GNU documentation license, and there are several
> 'opencontent' and other licenses.
>
> They seem to range from the perl docs 'If you want to change this mail me
> the changes' to 'I dont care'. Some of them restrict paper copies others
> dont.
>
> Its all up to the author.
Well I missed a few days of email, and I was a tad offended by the
implication that I wrote the USB Guide / HOWTO for my personal benefit.
I work pretty damn hard to try and keep up and give something back. The
reason why it doesn't have a decent license
agreement is that I haven't found one.
I certainly have no recollection of ever adding the statement that Alan
attributed to me. My view is that once it on the Internet, it is pretty
much beyond my control. You can redistribute it (in any format, with or
without SGML source) under any reasonable conditions - the only thing I
would really object to is having anything offensive attributed to me.
I would appreciate suggestions for a license that accomplishes this. My
understanding of copyright law is pretty poor.
Brad
BTW: The reason why it is on Sourceforge is that the documentation is
pretty early, and certainly isn't good enough to go into the LDP yet. I
would equally consider that it is not suitable to go into a distribution
yet. Sourceforge provides the space and the bandwidth that I can't
afford.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
