1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 17/12/13 14:07, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
5 |
> While I agree with you about both reasons, I disagree about what we |
6 |
> should do about it. IMHO, changing the license of the existing |
7 |
> GLEPs that are marked public domain is not worth the effort. |
8 |
There must be some sort of effort that I do not understand. It seems |
9 |
quite simple to me. Could you elaborate? |
10 |
|
11 |
> For future GLEPs, we could recommend CC0 instead of public domain, |
12 |
> which would solve the problem of definitions differing from |
13 |
> country to country, without imposing any additional restrictions on |
14 |
> reusing the document. |
15 |
SA is not a restriction. Quite the opposite. It makes sure the |
16 |
document always remains free, and that no one may impose restrictions |
17 |
on it by making a derivative with restrictions. However, considering |
18 |
the specific as well as trivial nature of GLEPs, I think that CC0 is |
19 |
fine as well. |
20 |
|
21 |
- -- |
22 |
Alexander |
23 |
alexander@××××××.net |
24 |
http://plaimi.net/~alexander |
25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
26 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
27 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
28 |
|
29 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlKwUukACgkQRtClrXBQc7W34AEAt1KfO09ovcmg8/qd8Xz4jLr4 |
30 |
YvR4HrArYsnGQa6RmqUA/Rr9S2ZeWsYxjA2eX3S9qlXwhS6/4NL1IH8UbyP0KWkB |
31 |
=82Di |
32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |