Aaron Turner (aturner@linuxkb.org)
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:46:25 -0800 (PST)
I'm confused, are we talking about free software or documents? While I
agree that it is common in both the free and non-free world for the
license to be in the program source code and even visible to the user when
they install/run it, I'm unfamilar with such provisions in a license which
is applicable to a "document". (By document, I'm specifically excluding
the source code to a program, which would fall under a lic such as the
GPL.)
What is common for software does not necessarily have any relevance to
documentation. Software and documentation have very different purposes
and audiences. From your comments/examples below, you seem to indicate
that you do feel it is relevant. Perhaps you would explain why?
P.S. In the future, please have an attribute statement indicating that it
is me you are replying to. This makes it easier for others reading via
mailing lists to determine who you are replying to.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Is there any precedence for requiring a license to be a part of (actually
> in-line) a document?
>
> In general, free software requires a copy of the license to be
> included in the program; in general, every free program comes with a
> copy of the license. There may be exceptions, but not many.
>
> as far as we know nobody else is doing it
>
> There are various things that "it" could refer to. If you mean,
> including copies of the license with a work, that is normal practice.
> If you mean, having a license that requires the license to be included
> in the work, that too is normal practice for free software.
>
> Why does this need to be different?
>
> What I am doing is the same as usual practice.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Jan 22 2000 - 21:48:06 EST