Unesco

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 06:32:04PM +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
> > There is no page behind the first url given.
> 	Just kill the trailing dot.

It was not the trailing dot. :)
It seems that the version of netscape (I have to do usability design
from different browsers sometimes, even proprietory ones...)
I happened to sit in front of does not display the page correctly.
(netscape 4.7 GNU/Linux/ppc)

Galeon 0.10.6 does display the page correctly.
(Font come out very ugly here, though.)

> > The document source as an introduction which is to complicated.
> 	Could you explain in more words please ? I don't see what
> you are referring to.

The introduction is too difficult to understand.
Why not something more like (braindump):

"Free Software is a piece of work. The owner of the copyright
can set the conditions for other people to utilise this work.
The default is restrictive.
With Free Software the copyright owner has to tell people that he
grands them the necessary freedoms. This is what a Free Software
license does.

There are several ways to do this with copyright law.
A license can be used to protect the freedom of the software,
when other people build upon the work. This is what Copyleft means.

Actually the selection of a license for a project might not be easy.
If a license protecting freedom less will further distribution of
the software. This might be benefical with standards like a TCP/IP
stack (MIT-style) or a clib (LGPL). On the other hand you want as
much protection as you can get.

It is helpful if you choose a known Free Software license.
You will not only get the protection by the copyright laws, but also
by people who know the license and what it means. They will trust
your project more easily. The GNU GPL is used by most active Free
Software Projects. With GNU LGPL you have a lesser and wht MIT a
non-protecting Free Software license. 
Your basic choice will be between these three licenses.

If you choose a different one the question will be if it is
compatible to the GNU GPL.
"


> > Usually I classify Free Software using criteria like:
> > 	Freedom protection: high --- low
> > 			    GPL      MIT/PD
> > 	GPL-compatible.
> > 
> > So basically you get four classes:
> > 	GPL, LGPL , MIT/PD ,other non GPL compatible
> > 
> 
> 	I agree it's better. Could you classify the listed licenses
> using your criterions ? 

I opt for not explaining all licenses, but basic choices.
Hopefully my brain dump gives you an idea on what I mean by this.

	Bernhard

-- 
Professional Service around Free Software                (intevation.net)  
The FreeGIS Project                                         (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure            (ffii.org)
FSF Europe                                            	  (fsfeurope.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20010828/4362276c/attachment.sig>