Re: Licensing concerns (MPL vs. LDP)

[Poet/Joshua Drake <poet@linuxports.com>]

Hello,

The MPL is an OpenSource compatible license. Therefore if he would like to
license it under such a license more power to him.

Joshua Drake

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'
>section.
>
>

-- 
--
<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 ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org