Re: [Openquartz-general] Re: [Quake-devel] fdl

[Bill C. <bi...@ta...>]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:13:38PM -0800, Seth Galbraith wrote:
> We have some great examples in the GPL and LGPL and FPL, unfortunately
> none of these licenses are intended for licensing content in this sense. A
> better solution is needed.  I believe the Open Content license made a
> serious attempt but then got stupid by being too specific about charging
> money.

Hmm, if the last is anything to go on, then take the OCL, fix it's stupidities, and hash it out. Aren't these licenses effectively `free software' as such? Sure, creating Yet Another Open Source License is usually a bad idea, I think this situation might be a different kettle of fish.  For one, we're not a company trying to protect our crown jewels (as such), and secondly, we're trying to /increase/ the freedoms granted by the license rather than reduce them.

Now, I can't really say how well or not the GPL and FPL (FDL?) apply to OQ, I need to go back and re-read the GPL and read the F[DP]L in the first place (see, I'm not even sure of the name:), so I'll keep mum on that topic for now.

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak