On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 11:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Case in point: the Open > Publication License with no optional clauses is considered a free > (documentation) license by the FSF[1], but it contains a verbatim copy > of the clause in question. (It also includes a verbatim copy of the > inclusion clause you cited earlier, and from reading over both of them, > I wouldn't be surprised if one was the basis for the other.) Yep, I noticed that right away; it seems to be a very close variant on the OPL. > In any > case, license proliferation is annoying. :-) Perhaps the NSA can let us know why this PUL was created instead of using the existing OPL. If the GPL is good enough for government work, why not the OPL? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
