Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal

[Jorge Godoy <godoy@conectiva.com>]

>>>>> "DL" == David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org> writes:

    DL> You don't need to be a lawyer to understand a license.

Well... You are a Lawyer. :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

    DL> Right now I think that either the Boilerplate or the "LDP
    DL> License" (needs revision) would be the way to go.  My second
    DL> choice would be GPL (but not GFDL).  What I would like to do
    DL> is to modify the Boilerplate License per my draft and then go
    DL> on to more discussion on the complex license issues.

Could you send your drafts to the list with some criticism of your
own? And, please, could you explain why you chose GPL and not GFDL? 

OpenContent licenses are good for companies, but I don't think they
are good for LDP. And I agree with David where he said that new
authors shouldn't worry with licenses. I want to write, to work, and
not to worry if the license I chose will forbid *ME*, the author, to
donate my work to another person to use in his document, book, guide,
HOWTO, whatever. 


Thanks,
-- 
Godoy. <godoy@conectiva.com>

Departamento de Publicações       Conectiva S.A.
Publishing Department             Conectiva Inc.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org