Re: License for DOCs in main?
Jules Bean <email@example.com> writes:
> IMHO, the restrictions below do not prevent us distributing on CD, and
> I believe that we already have docs in main with licenses as harsh as
E.g. the GPL itself, as a document, is under copyright conditions that
would definitely make it non DFSG-free had it happened to be a source
> > 02. Any translation or derivative work of The Linux Net-
> > work Administrators' Guide must be approved by the au-
> > thor in writing before distribution.
> This is awful.
I don't think that clause has any legal significance compared to if
it wasn't present. If distribution of derived work is not *explicitly*
allowed, it is forbidden.
Would you require that any documentation on the CDs should come with
copyright statemtents that explicitly allowed modification?