[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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


Reply to: