on 8/10/00 12:47 AM, craig@xxxxxx at craig@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Ruffin Bailey wrote:
>
>> I replied to the below reply and asked if I could stick an OCR'd version
>> up under GPL or the like.
>
> Might want to try the license that the Linux Documentation Project is
> under (i.e. You can freely distribute it, but cannot make changes to the
> original docs without the author's permission). He might get better warm
> fuzzies off of that.
>
> Or beter yet... see if he'll allow a PDF file to be made off of it, and
> distribute it under a "personal use = free, commercial = pay" license.
>
> Just some food for thought. GPL really doesn't make much sense here for
> this document.
My first thought there was just to make sure that no one could use his book
for evil (ie, make money), but make it so that it could still be altered to
make it more useful to certain specific groups of programmers (say, just as
an example, maybe 2600 programmers?). That's what got me thinking GPL.
Admittedly, I was kinda hoping he'd respond with, "Well, my agent has
another license that he'd prefer, the LMNOP license." To which I'd say,
"Great!"
Ruffin Bailey
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
