| 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----- |
Archives