Re: CVS, templates, and changes to docs

["David C. Mason" <dcm redhat com>]

Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu> writes:

> Is there any freedom with this?  I won't stop writing if I have to use this
> license, but I don't really like it all that much, the Open Publication
> stuff from http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ is more to MY liking.  As a
> totally unrelated note, I believe that some of the lawyers from Macmillan
> publishing house have approved this license for their books.


Well the main problem is that we (the GNOME Community) want to and
have always wanted to align ourselves with the GNU project. So far we
have done a pretty good job at it. We already make RMS mad by not
using info to do all our docs - we should at least use the GNU
project's licenses.

I personally like the new license and saying MacMillan's lawyers
approved the open content one actually scares me! O'Reilly is already
using the FDL with approval from their lawyers but that adds about as
much to the discussion as the MacMillan reference.

We can not force anyone to use a license - at all. But we, as
maintainers, can say that your documentation under another license
will not be shipped with the docs - or the app. 

My personal opinion - obviously, is to use the license and trademark
paragraph we have now to make sure we are still mostly GNU
compliant. If we move away from it, we will experience static we don't
need to have.

I'm not sure I just made sense...I'll revisit this when my head clears
from the long day :)


Cheers,

Dave

-- 

          David Mason
        Red Hat AD Labs

        dcm@redhat.com
  http://people.redhat.com/dcm