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

Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?

Jeremy Hankins wrote:

> How about dual licensing?  License it under both the GPL (or whatever
> license the software you're documenting uses -- see below) and the
> CC-by.

That's a thought...  it's a good thought.

I'll discuss that with the others.

> But if you dual license now, when the time comes that you can switch 
> entirely to your preferred license, you quietly drop the CC-by with no 
> extra fuss.  Switching licenses is *hard* when you have a lot of 
> contributors to contact and get approval from.

Well, I do like the CC-BY very much and wouldn't want to drop it. But your 
point about dual licensing is still strong.

> As for which other license to use, think about the possibility that you
> will want your license to be compatible with that of the software you
> document.  Someone down the road may want to use excerpts from your
> documentation as context help, or something like that.  If the licenses
> are incompatible that may not be possible -- at least not without
> jumping some legal hoops.

I hadn't thought of that. I'm glad you mentioned it.

The situation is a tad complicated, but not too much. OpenOffice.org is 
dual-licensed (LGPL/SISSL). I wouldn't want the documentation to be triple 
licensed. However, I could make it GPL/CC-BY, and that would still work 
for GNU/Linux distros. Because OOo has a GPL-compatible license, a distro 
could ship OOo plus the docs, all under the GPL.

I like the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I'll ask our editor what she 
thinks. After she and I talk about it, we'll bring this up to the rest of 
the gang.

My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using 
the GPL for documentation.

Daniel Carrera          | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today!  | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org   | 

Reply to: