Re: LinuxKB License

[Micah Yoder <LYoder@cyberis.net>]

(Sorry, I need to get back in this... I've been hacking on some stuff
but CVS has been giving me more grief......)

"Aaron D. Turner" wrote:

> There was one thing I thought might be interesting to "add" to the
> license.  The OPL allows for people to make changes, providing that thost
> changes are clearly marked.  A good thing no doubt.  What would be nice is
> to add a clause that says they must also submit the changed article to
> LinuxKB so that we can publish the new article (at our discretion of
> course).  This allows us to continue to provide the most recent/up-to-date
> article.

That sounds like one of the things that disqualified the APSL from being
open-source.  Probably not a good idea.  We should *suggest* they send
changes to us, but it probably shouldn't be a requirement.

Besides, what if they want to build a documentation library for an
in-house system, where things might be a bit different - for example,
they could add specific info for their organization.  We woulnd't want
that.

Plus, as Bruce said of the APSL, what if we cease to exist?  Then the
license can't be complied with.

Just my $0.02