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

Re: Which license for a documentation?

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>>> On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye <m.delahaye@esiee.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>> [...] I just want to know if there is a list of
>>>> common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
>>>> DFSG
>>>> free.
>>> I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences
>>> would work for any software and there are benefits from having your
>>> manuals under the same licence as your program.
>>> Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
>>> "I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me
>>> to link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the
>>> contributors. No warranty offered and no liability accepted."
>> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
>> suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
>> frown upon the request for credit.
> Nobody here would do so, just so you know.  :-)

Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of
the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: