On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:21:23 +0100
MJ Ray <..hidden..> wrote:
> > > Or perhaps the Creative Commons?
> >
> > Which Creative Commons license were you thinking?
>
> Creative Commons licenses are complicated and contain lawyerbombs -
> things which are vague and/or confusing and/or CC has ignored requests
> to explain. I don't see the benefit over a BSD-style documentation
> licence if that's what's wanted.
>
> Some debian manuals are under the GPL. It is not necessary (ISTR
> lawyers advising that it may even be unhelpful) to specify the
> preferred form for editing, as that may change over time. A court
> should decide what is reasonable as source code, if really needed.
>
> Regards,
Here is the deal. I don't like the idea of someone being able to close
and print the ledgersmb documentation. It is really that simple and
thus I don't think the BSD license is a good thing here.
I like Open Pub (we could remove the clauses if you like) because it is
simple and to the point.
I don't like the nor have I ever liked the FSF version of their
documentation license.
I am not really advocating one way or the other if you really want to
BSD it, go for it, you wrote most of it :)
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature