On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 08:18:51AM +0800, LI Daobing (李道兵) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Andres Mejia <mcitadel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I know the CC-BY-SA-2.5 license is considered non-free. The api
> > documentation in the ogre-doc package is under this license. Suppose
> > upstream decided to use CC-BY-SA-3.0 instead. Would this still be
> > allowed if the documentation is generated from LGPL source files?
The copyright holder doesn't have to follow his own license[1]. If he
wants to license this derivative work (which it clearly is IMO) under a
separate license, he can. But:
> I think you can regenerate it again, so it can be under LGPL license
I think this is correct. If we take the LGPL source and doxygen, and
don't get the documentation directly from upstream, but instead rebuild
it ourselves, then we have created our own derivative work, which
happens to be identical to what upstream distributes, but under a
different license.
On the other hand, doing this without talking to upstream sounds like a
great way to ruin the contact. ;-) It's probably good to let them know
about this idea, and ask what they think about it. If they don't like
it, then it might be best to not do it, even if it would be lawful.
Thanks,
Bas
[1] However, if there are multiple copyright holders, as is often the
case for free software projects, they need to follow each other's
license, so they can only decide as a group (unanimously) to
relicense the documentation in this way.
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature