[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Licensing concerns (MPL vs. LDP)
The MPL is an OpenSource compatible license. Therefore if he would like to
license it under such a license more power to him.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Guylhem Aznar wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 08:36:15AM -0600, Matthew P. Barnson wrote:
>> Please note: Because of current corporate concerns with Bugzilla
>> maintainers, the documentation cannot currently be licensed under the GPL or
>> Gnu Free Documentation License.
>What are exactly that concerns?? The GFDL is here to protect both your
>rights and your work, not to lessen them.
>Consider the OPL -A -B (without options A and B) if you don't want the
>GFDL, but I strongly advise you against choosing the MPL.
>IMHO it is not a free license and would prevent your work from being
>redistributed with the LDP documents, or in a separate 'commercial'
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com