From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from 9000.wasd.dk (unknown [195.54.80.83]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 62E00ABD4F for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 15:15:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 600 invoked by uid 1001); 2 May 2002 20:15:40 -0000 Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 22:15:40 +0200 From: Bjarke =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8rensen?= To: Sherman Boyd Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How should Gentoo docs be licensed? Message-ID: <20020502201540.GA32632@wasd.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: dde6e1c0-b761-4826-a669-291f4ccd2f9f X-Archives-Hash: 2fbe60ee16d4ad49d097d0213f5ea186 On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:04:26AM -0700, Sherman Boyd wrote: > How should Gentoo docs be licensed? I know of two documentation licenses, the GFDL and the OPL. Anyone know of any alternatives? > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ > Both licenses are seem good to me, but I am not a copyright lawyer. The GFDL is definitely longer, and more specific. The OPL is short and clean, easily understood by a layperson. Is this settled yet? Or should I bring my 5 cents? -- | 9000.WASD | | Bjarke Sørensen | http://wasd.dk/ | | There are 10 types of people in this world: | Those who understand binary, and those who don't.