Re: [email@example.com: cdd-doc licensing]
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 10:55:48PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, dann frazier wrote:
> > I was poking through cdd-doc in svn and noticed that it is licensed under
> > the GFDL - should this be changed to the GPL, given the DFSG compatability
> > issues?
> What do you think about it. I have to admit that I do not really understand
> all this licensing fuss, but if I'm not completely wrong GFDL is not
> incompatible to DFSG per se but only if there are some certain additions.
My understanding is different, but I'm by no means an expert on the
matter. Here's some references assembled by people that have looked
deeper into the issue than I:
A position statement draft that Manoj put together:
Various other references on Branden's page:
> 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.
> Just give
> concise and well thought reasons which make absolutely clear that cdd-doc
> is incompatible to DFSG
I'd suggest reading the proposal Manoj drafted (referenced above).
> and make a suggestion which would fix that.
Here's an excerpt from http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html:
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
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.
My suggestion, based on these documents, would be to use the GPL.