Re: Which license for a documentation?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

m.delahaye@esiee.fr (Matthieu Delahaye) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
> author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
> respecting Debian policies.
> 
> The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
> "license" is not usable to be uploaded under Debian. It says:
> 
> "Permission is granted to make copies for personal or educational use"
> 
> They are ok to change the license of this document so that it can
> be DFSG free.
> 
> Now the question is which one they should use. The problem of a
> documentation license is not new and there is still some discussion
> about the freeness of some of them.
> 
> My aim here is not to start a discussion about should these previous
> license be free or not free. I just want to know if there is a list of
> common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG
> free.

Use the same license as the program.  Then it will be possible to take
code and put it into the docs, and vice versa.

This is not the first time that this has come up.  Perhaps there could
be a FAQ at www.debian.org/legal?

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu