(urth) Lexicon Urthus

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 7/22/05, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. If it's available POD (even spiralbound), and is being
> revised, then I say leave it at that. There is no need to ask for
> a GNU-type license.

Well, I was careful to point out that GNU's license was not the only
option, that Creative Commons had several different possible licenses,
that it was not all-or-nothing (all rights reserved vs. public
domain).
Indeed, the more I examine it, the less I like the Gnu documentation
license (the GPL is still the best thing since Lisp and sliced bread,
but that is neither here nor there); it has some rather nasty
provisos.  I myself, in my many contributions to Wikipedia, do not use
the GNU doc license. I release my articles and edits into the public
domain.
Still, I wish mantis had just noted on his website that he was
revising it, that it was gonna be published (and not just a 'maybe')
before I got all revved up.  And as I've said before, there is no real
need to ask... for now.

~Maru
that wasn't supposed to sound sinister