Re: GPL type license for documentation...

[spblunt@ozemail.com.au (Steven Blunt)]

I've seen a lot of documentation that simply uses the GPL.  In particular I
think the Gnome documentation is GPL.  The GNU documentation may be GPL
also. 

The two licences seem compatable, so I don't think this will be a problem.
I think we should try to avoid "for non-commercial use only" type
documentation.

Also the more I think about it, I think we should skip Pine in favour of a
free (speech) mailreader.  Elm is nice and Mutt seems good from what I've
heard of it.  Neither contain a newsreader but there are plenty of those
(I've heard slrn is nice) and Pine's newsreader wasn't that great last time
I checked(well in 1995).

On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:16:56 +0800, David Buddrige
<dbuddrige@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I was asking if there was a "GPL" style license
>for documentation.  I have now found such a license... it can be viewed
>at http://www.opencontent.org/opl.html.  It's effectively the same as
>the GPL but with a focus on documentation and content....
>
>Regards
>
>David Buddrige
>


--
Steven Blunt
spblunt@ozemail.com.au
http://enterfornone.simplenet.com/