Re: License for ATI driver documentation
Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 13:43 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
> > Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> [documentation license]
> > > Ok. Here my suggestion:
> > >
> > > /------------------
> > > > Copyright (C) ....
> > > > [..]
> > > \------------------
> > >
> > > I included your suggestions and changed "documentation" to "software" in
> > > item 3.) of the conditions list. Better?
> >
> > Better. The no-warranty clause should also say "software" instead of
> > "documentation". Otherwise, I think you're good to go.
>
> Done. The latest is
> http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/fglrx_man/COPYING?rev=1.5.
Looks good.
> May I ask one further question? I want to release the autogen.sh script,
> the Makefile and configure script and the other stuff without any
> limitation. The macros itself are licensed under a all-permissive
> license (inspired by the autoconf-archive package). Is this
> all-permissive license
>
> /-------------
> > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> > notice and this notice are preserved.
> \-------------
>
> ok for Makefile(s), configure scripts, ...? Or is it better to release
> them into public domain? I don't think, that I should claim any rights
> on them.
This license is good. It turns out that it is difficult to really
release things into the public domain in some countries, so an
explicit license is better.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: