.LRN license is GPL, the same as OpenACS. .LRN should be distributed with the same copyright as OpenACS. As for the rest of the question, I would like to hear the views of the community.Are you referring to the code in the first sentance? The code is clearly labled as GPL and MIT is the main copy right holder, correct?
If so I guess the rest would be
- .LRN Name
- Content on dotLRN.org
- Intended for Paper materials produced by the .LRN Consortium marketing or describing .LRN Anything else?
Al, can you please clarify who currently holds the copy right on the above items?
In case anyone hasn't guessed I vote for GPL!
What do other people think?