Re: [dannf@debian.org: cdd-doc licensing]
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, dann frazier wrote:
> > Anyway, I would just choose a DFSG compatible license to avoid all trouble
> > but I will not spend my time with licensing issues (flame wars).
>
> Please don't mistake this as an attack - my goal is only to bring it to
> the list's attention.
Definitely not considered as an attack. I'm happy about those hints and
GFDL was just choosen for historical reasons. It just seemed appropriate
for me to put _documentation_ under a _documentation_ license.
> """
> Q: I'm writing documentation to accompany a free program. What license should
> I use for this documentation?
>
> A: We strongly suggest you use the same license as used for the program. Then
> it will be possible to take code and put it into the documentation, and
> vice versa.
>
> If you would like to grant some extra freedoms for the documentation not
> granted for the remainder of the software package (eg freedom to distribute as
> a paper manual without corresponding document source) we recommend you use a
> dual license: one of which grants these extra freedoms, and the other the same
> license as the program.
> """
Sounds very reasonable.
> My suggestion, based on these documents, would be to use the GPL.
Will be changed as soon as I find time - or anybody else would change this
in SVN (permission is hereby granted, which I guess I have to do as copyright
holder - but that's just formality).
Kind regards and thanks for the hint
Andreas.
Reply to: