Re: License for ATI driver documentation
Daniel Leidert <email@example.com> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 13:43 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
> > Daniel Leidert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> [documentation license]
> > > Ok. Here my suggestion:
> > >
> > > /------------------
> > > > Copyright (C) ....
> > > > [..]
> > > \------------------
> > >
> > > I included your suggestions and changed "documentation" to "software" in
> > > item 3.) of the conditions list. Better?
> > Better. The no-warranty clause should also say "software" instead of
> > "documentation". Otherwise, I think you're good to go.
> Done. The latest is
> May I ask one further question? I want to release the autogen.sh script,
> the Makefile and configure script and the other stuff without any
> limitation. The macros itself are licensed under a all-permissive
> license (inspired by the autoconf-archive package). Is this
> all-permissive license
> > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> > notice and this notice are preserved.
> ok for Makefile(s), configure scripts, ...? Or is it better to release
> them into public domain? I don't think, that I should claim any rights
> on them.
This license is good. It turns out that it is difficult to really
release things into the public domain in some countries, so an
explicit license is better.