On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 05:14:01PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>
> > subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?... now that
> > I think about it, shouldn't that be OCL? The _text_ of the OPL says
> > "OpenContent License", not "OpenContent Public License".
> >
> > If the answer is yes,
> >
> > a) can it be added to the DFSG as a DFSG-ok license? How does one
> > achieve this? (in other words, who shall be bugged?)
>
> The list given in the DFSG is not meant to be comprehensive. We don't
> have to add every DFSG-compliant license to it.
Ok. Let me rephrase it.
If the OPL is going to be widely used for documentation and it's considered
to be a DFSG-ok license, shouldn't it be mentioned on the DFSG to encourage
it's use? (As opposed to other licenses currently used for documentation
which are -- questionably -- DFSG-ok... perl's FAQ comes to mind)
And, btw, I was really asking if the OPL is DSFG-ok.
Marcelo
