Re: Proof-reading FAQ of www.morphix.org

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:28:38 +0100 (BST)
"Brendan M. Sleight" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It is all semantics,

Indeed.

> but IMHO license fits better than guidelines, especially with the
> explaination :-"It strives to give derivatives the freedom to use
> Morphix in any way possible and only gives guidelines, no mandatory
> parts are included in this license. "

Well, since Morphix work is release under the GPL (according to
http://freshmeat.net/projects/morphix/), it is already covered by a
license.

If you call it MDDL, it would mean that it's dual licensed (like QT and
a lot of other softwares). Which it isn't.

Here is the definition of license I found:

a legal document giving official permission to do something
(http://www.google.com/search?q=define:license)

As far as I understand it, the MDDL isn't legal and just suggests how to
do with several non technical aspects of derivative work.

But as for the other input I give in my previous mail, it's just a
suggestion.

Cheers,

-- 
Ir Carl Devos
Hellea sprl  -  bureau d'étude
http://www.hellea.be/


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id70&alloc_id638&op=click