Re: [ode] [rms@gnu.org: Re: Updating the OpenContent license]


Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.org)
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:13:06 -0700 (MST)


    Richard, has the attorney made any comments about inclusion versus
    reference. If reference is to a published, controlled, document,
    reference should be adequate?

We discussed the issue and he agreed with me that there is a risk
of losing the connection to the license over time.

      There is no reason why someone
    could not apply an open/free license to fiction, news, or research
    material.

Sure, but those probably call for different licenses anyway.
I don't think that one license is right for all kinds of works.

I'm designing this license for documentation, for textbooks, etc.,
because that's what the GNU Project needs one for, and because I think
that is a compact enough area that one license will do the job.

    We registered a name this weekend: openstandards.org.

We already have a web site, and a domain that has existed for several
years: gnu.org. If I were inclined to rely on a host name to be valid
for 20 years, I would choose ours. But I think it is unwise to rely
on that for referring to a license. We will continue the practice of
putting the license in the work itself.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 03:15:23 EST