www/licenses license-list.html

[Brett Smith]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Brett Smith <brett>     08/05/22 21:39:51

Modified files:
        licenses       : license-list.html 

Log message:
        Remove old qmail license; it's public domain now.  Resolves RT#362336.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/license-list.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.220&r2=1.221

Patches:
Index: license-list.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/license-list.html,v
retrieving revision 1.220
retrieving revision 1.221
diff -u -b -r1.220 -r1.221
--- license-list.html   6 May 2008 20:26:21 -0000       1.220
+++ license-list.html   22 May 2008 21:39:35 -0000      1.221
@@ -1104,12 +1104,6 @@
 license change in 2003 made Plan&nbsp;9 free software</a>.</p></dd>
 
 
-<dt>License of Qmail</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>The license of Qmail is not a free software license because it mostly
-prohibits the distribution of modified versions.</p></dd>
-
-
 <dt><a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php";>
     Reciprocal Public License</a></dt>
 <dd>
@@ -1324,8 +1318,8 @@
 <hr />
 
 
-<h3><a id="OtherLicenses">Licenses for Works Besides Software and
-    Documentation</a></h3> 
+<h3><a id="OtherLicenses">Licenses for Works of Practical Use Besides
+    Software and Documentation</a></h3>
 
 <dl>
 
@@ -1358,14 +1352,14 @@
 software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL
 and with the GNU FDL.</p>
 
-<p>Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different.
-Therefore, to say that a work &ldquo;uses a Creative Commons
-license&rdquo; is to leave the principal questions about the work's
-licensing unanswered.  When you see such a statement in a work, please
-ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices.  And
-if someone proposes to &ldquo;use a Creative Commons license&rdquo;
-for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, &ldquo;Which
-one?&rdquo;</p>
+<p><a name="which-cc">Creative Commons publishes many licenses which
+are very different.  Therefore, to say that a work &ldquo;uses a
+Creative Commons license&rdquo; is to leave the principal questions
+about the work's licensing unanswered.  When you see such a statement
+in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the
+license choices.  And if someone proposes to &ldquo;use a Creative
+Commons license&rdquo; for a certain work, it is vital to ask
+immediately, &ldquo;Which one?&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode";>
@@ -1375,8 +1369,8 @@
 entertainment works, and educational works.  Please don't use it for
 software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL
 and with the GNU FDL.</p>
-<p>Please see additional comments about Creative Commons licenses
-just above.</p></dd>
+<p>Please <a href="#which-cc">be specific about which Creative
+    Commons license is being used</a>.</p></dd>
 
 
 <dt><a href="/licenses/dsl.html">
@@ -1442,7 +1436,43 @@
 
 </dl>
 
+<h3><a id="OpinionLicenses">Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment</a></h3>
 
+<p>Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so
+on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical
+use like software and documentation.  Because of this, we expect them
+to provide recipients with a different set of permissions: the
+permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim, for both
+commercial and noncommercial purposes.
+<a href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html" title="Richard
+Stallman discusses what rights the public should have for works of
+opinion">Richard Stallman discusses this</a> frequently in his
+speeches.</p>
+
+<p>Because so many licenses meet these criteria, we cannot list them
+all.  If you are looking for one to use yourself, however, there are
+two that we recommend:</p>
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt><a href="/licenses/licenses.html#VerbatimCopying">GNU Verbatim
+    Copying License</a></dt>
+
+<dd><p>This is the license used throughout the GNU and FSF web sites.
+    It is very simple, and especially well-suited to written
+    works.</p></dd>
+
+<dt><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/legalcode";>Creative
+    Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 license
+    (a.k.a. CC-BY-ND)</a></dt>
+
+<dd><p>This license provides much the same permissions as our verbatim
+    copying license, but it's much more detailed.  We particularly
+    recommend it for audio and/or video works of opinion.
+    Please <a href="#which-cc">be specific about which Creative
+    Commons license is being used</a>.</p></dd>
+
+</dl>
 
 <hr />
 <h4><a href="/licenses/licenses.html">More about licenses</a></h4>
@@ -1478,7 +1508,7 @@
   <p>
     Updated:
     <!-- timestamp start -->
-    $Date: 2008/05/06 20:26:21 $
+    $Date: 2008/05/22 21:39:35 $
     <!-- timestamp end -->
   </p>
 </div>