Re: Which license for a documentation?
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> MJ Ray <email@example.com> writes:
>>> On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> [...] I just want to know if there is a list of
>>>> common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
>>> 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?