| Message 00921 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thread: oxenT00811 Message: 11/33 L9 | [In index] | ||
| [First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
| [Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein gmx.de> wrote:
I do see DSL as a good option, though. If compatibility is seen as the lesser problem, definitely better than the FDL! (IMHO.)
Well, publication of the two works in a collected edition is seen by both the DSL and FDL as mere aggregation and not a problem. Problems will only come if we want to merge texts and neither copyright holder will agree. Dual-licensing is a possible solution, but then we leave open the "growing junk secondary sections" problem which I was suggesting DSL as a way to avoid. It's really a pain that GNU created a new licence to allow them to put an unmodifiable unremovable manifesto in their works. It should have been included with their publications as an aggregate under a different licence with a request to include it. As to opentheory requiring FDL... OW! That bites! MJR _______________________ http://www.oekonux.org/
| Thread: oxenT00811 Message: 11/33 L9 | [In index] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Message 00921 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |