Subject: Re: For Approval: MN Open Documentation License 1.0
From: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@tlen.pl>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:20:30 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 17 of December 2004 06:15, Russell Nelson wrote:
> We don't certify documentation separately from source code.  We want
> to stay with our core mission: telling people about the benefits of
> open source code.

That's not what I'm asking for. My application is already covered by the 
GNU LGPL and the documentation by the GNU FDL which I want to change. 
True, making documentation open and code close is definitly not what we 
want but if there was a license designed for documentation (and not for 
code) it could promote writing books/articles/whatever under that license. 
Wikipedia is covered by the GNU FDL because that's the only license for 
documentation but some developers don't consider it to be open source 
license so Wikipedia ends up being something between open and close source 
(though much closer to open).

> Any number of OSI-approved licenses also work for 
> documentation, e.g. the BSD, GPL, AFL, or OSL.

See my response to Thorsten Glaser's post.

- -- 
Best regards,                                          _     _
.o. | Liege of Serenly Enlightened Majesty           o' \,=./ `o
..o | of Computer Science,  Michal "MINA" Nazarewicz    (o o)
ooo +--<mina86@tlen.pl>--<jid:mina86@jabber.org>----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBwvlDUyzLALfG3x4RAtKKAJ4kG3nBgaab6mpBhwcZKJ1IMrdXBQCfbHOk
FDAdlJXE3XIuzqo1ZCTa7Ig=
=zTMa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----