Re: (beta2) WANTED: Linux Knowledge Base Org. Developers

[Aaron Turner <aturner@linuxkb.org>]

Just read the OPL.  Personally I don't care for it.  I think if someone
wants to burn our site on CDROM and wants to charge more than the burning
and shipping costs they should be able to.  It also has no attribution
statement, like the NOD does which I think is important.  It also lacks
the roll-back feature that I added to the NOD which forces people to send
us copies of their changes if they re-distribute them.

Anyways, if you haven't yet, read our license- I think very few will have
any issues with it, since it's not limiting in any way.  It only requires
you to do something if you redistribute/modify it, none of which are
difficult or imposing.

On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Roger Dingledine wrote:

> > > I'm scared away by the mention of a new license. You say in the url,
> > > why the gpl and opl were developed? Why did these guys want to change
> > 
> > I think you may very well be right here.  Would the opl apply to our content?
> > I am not very familiar with it myself.  Have a url?
> 
> http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
>  
> I've hear of people putting documentation under the gpl also.
> rms recommended that up until a year or so ago, i have no idea
> if he's changed his mind since.
> 
> --Roger
>