(urth) Lexicon Urthus

Maru Dubshinki marudubshinki at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 20:27:55 PDT 2005

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
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
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.

that wasn't supposed to sound sinister

More information about the Urth mailing list