That would be the most restrictive license I could probably support (ie.
I could go for something that was at most that restrictive), but I won't
be writing much...
I think the idea behind the license should be that commercial activities
aren't bad but that some people try to rip you off. I wouldn't worry
about details right now.
On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:
> A license should be worded 'Please apply for permission to use
> in a commercial app' then?
> THat seems reaosnable to add. COmments from the rest?
>
> > Well my only concern is fly-by-nights trying to make a quick buck. I have
> > no problem with Stronghold incorporating some of the material.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:
> >
> > > So this brings up some issues. The SH docs right now include
> > > some text from the apache docs, but most of it is a rewrite. If you
> > > restrict the new docs for a commercial use then does commercial
> > > documentation have to be a clean room effort?
> > >
> > > > No better way to screw up discussions than to mention licensing. I don't
> > > > think the code license is appropriate for high quality documentation.
Our
> > > > current manual, while extensive, is not "book ready". But it's possible
> > > > that this project would produce something which is book ready. We do
not
> > > > want someone to be able to print it and reap profits off our work...
> > > > unlike software which is high overhead (nobody would buy from a
> > > > fly-by-night, they look for support, etc.), books don't usually come with
> > > > support contracts.
> > > >
> > > > Just food for thought. The documentation must be free, but it could have
> > > > commercial restrictions added to it.
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
> > > President FAX: 510-986-8777
> > > C2Net
> > > http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
> President FAX: 510-986-8777
> C2Net
> http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
>
|