Re: Documentation license

On 7 Jul 1999, Jim Winstead wrote: > What do people think of changing the documentation license to something > else? My current thought would be something like the Open Publication > License (http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/), with an addendum to the > effect of allowing publishers to print copies of the manual with an > "official" in the title if they contribute some amount of royalties to > the PHP Development Fund (or are we going to be handing over handling > of the money to the ASF?) and contribute their modifications back to us, > otherwise requiring them to put "Unofficial" in the title. > > Since most of the manual content pre-dates any publisher involvement, > I see the official/unofficial thing as a way for publishers who "do the > right thing" to distinguish themselves, without putting any publisher's > name in the title (which is how the Open Publication License structures > things). > > Any thoughts? If people seem to be generally in favor of this, I will do > my best to track down all of the various documentation contributors when > we have a new license we're happy with. > > (Note: I'm not one of the core developers involved with the O'Reilly > book, so this isn't any sort of indication of what is going on with > that effort.) What do you mean with documentation contributors? What is ASF? Can you wait until Stig is back from his rollerblade trip? -Egon PS: is there any possibility to upload Mike Robinson's indexed PDF manual on www.php.net? In www.php.net/~eschmid or so?