From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27490 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2005 11:10:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Received: (qmail 27470 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2005 11:10:08 -0000 Received: from norbert.ecoscentric.com (HELO smtp.ecoscentric.com) (194.153.168.165) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:10:08 +0000 Received: by smtp.ecoscentric.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id D1AF165C057; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:10:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C5F65C057; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:10:04 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <42B9470C.3050602@eCosCentric.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:10:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.3 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Lunn Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: Commentary on the OPL References: <42B1733F.6060501@eCosCentric.com> <20050622091904.GW3201@donkey.ma.tech.ascom.ch> In-Reply-To: <20050622091904.GW3201@donkey.ma.tech.ascom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on norbert.ecoscentric.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > >>We use the Open Publications Licence for our docs as you know. I've >>stumbled across this interesting commentary on it. It's quite interesting, >>to me at least :)... > > > Was there some requirement for FSF that we change license? Not yet. But they may either try to insist, or at least argue strongly that we use the FDL. If the latter then we'd have to have a strong belief that we're using the most appropriate licence. That commentary undermines some of that belief, to me at least. Not that the FDL seems very good either. I have concerns, shared by others on the net, about how "Free" the FDL is. For example, how Free is it in section 4 . There's a whole load of things that restrict freedom there, and a "modification" need only be trivial. It's very different to the GPL in principle. The GPL is all about the freedom to modify. The FDL is all about restrictions on that. Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine