Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation
John Goerzen wrote:
>I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
>author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
>license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
>DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to consider other
I always say: use the same license as you used for the program. This is
the best thing to do 90% of the time or more.
You are mostly using the GPL, with extra permissions and disclaimers.
This is a fine license for documentation.
>Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
>want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
With a GPL-licensed manual, it would be a pain in the neck for anyone to
publish and sell paper versions of the manual, as they would have to include
the source code to the manual on CD (or equivalent) with the manual. I have
argued that they would also have to include the source code for such details
as the fonts, the cover art, the binding, and so forth. While this is
certainly possible, it is extremely unlikely that any publisher would go to
the trouble to do that, and even more unlikely that they'd do so without
getting permission from Kern.
>Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and meet
>Kern's requirements? Would the FDL work in some fashion (given our
>recent GR on the subject?)
No. The FDL is specifically designed *for* paper copies to be made and sold.
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
Read it and weep.