Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA26484; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from veal.organic.com (h20.n145.organic.com [204.152.145.20]) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA26465 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (akosut@localhost) by veal.organic.com (8.8.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA17191 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: veal.organic.com: akosut owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:38:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Alexei Kosut To: apache-docs@apache.org Subject: Re: license In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: apache-docs-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: apache-docs@apache.org On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote: > 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. Nor do I. I do have one concern about putting a license on the docs more restrictive than the Apache license itself: Are these docs going to be distributed with the Apache distribution itself? Currently, we do; /htdocs/manual/ contains the complete set of Apache reference and how-to documentation (which is somewhat lacking). If we decide to make it seperate, only available from www.apache.org, that's fine, but if we keep including docs with Apache, I'd perfer that they keep under the Apache license (or a less restrictive one), so that the entire Apache package can be redistrbuted under the terms of the Apache license. That being said, I don't plan to get too involved with documentation, except maybe here and there. Certainly I'm very interested in making sure the Apache 2.0 API (whenever it comes) is well-documented. -- Alexei Kosut