Re: Which license for a documentation?
<posted & mailed>
Matthieu Delahaye wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
> author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
> respecting Debian policies.
>
> The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
> "license" is not usable to be uploaded under Debian. It says:
>
> "Permission is granted to make copies for personal or educational use"
>
> They are ok to change the license of this document so that it can
> be DFSG free.
>
> Now the question is which one they should use.
He should use the same license as he uses for the program itself. This has
a ridiculous number of advantages over any other choice.
> The problem of a
> documentation license is not new and there is still some discussion
> about the freeness of some of them.
>
> My aim here is not to start a discussion about should these previous
> license be free or not free. I just want to know if there is a list of
> common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG
> free.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Matthieu Delahaye
>
> [1] : http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~usystem/uC++.html
> [2] : ftp://plg.uwaterloo.ca/pub/uSystem/u++-5.0.ps.gz
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: