simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
nights at nights.f9.co.uk
Tue Oct 3 03:06:50 UTC 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave J Woolley" <david.woolley at bts.co.uk>
> [DJW:] No DOCTYPE and blockquote immediately subordinate to ul, see
I didn't realise that was required - I was under the (obviously mistaken)
impression that w3c HTML included defaults for all that....
> 4.01 for HTML, XHTML 1.0 for the latest released standard.
> Note that there are probably no fully compliant browsers
> for either of these. CSS2 for style sheets.
But they may be considered both standard and trabsparent, so I may use thm
as examples within the letter of the license, anyone disagree?
> > Still transparent though - that is the condition, rather than the
> > form being required. You think I should speify original form?
> [DJW:] That's weaker than the full GPL, which requires the
> form normally used for making changes. Some people have
> proposed using obfuscated source to get round the GPL, but
> this requirement tends to invalidate that attack.
I am deliberately looser than GPL here to give the freedom to publish in
varied media (including material media with certain conditions). I may write
a commentary to clear up the philosophy of the sLODL....
More information about the License-discuss