From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6127 invoked by alias); 11 May 2004 21:52:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6120 invoked from network); 11 May 2004 21:52:04 -0000 Message-ID: <40A14B02.3010006@eCosCentric.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 21:52:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: eCos Maintainers Subject: Documentation License Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 The time is coming up (I hope!) when we'll need to make some choices about our documentation license. The FSF have already said that our existing Open Publication License (with the license options) is not acceptable to them. However, I don't know if people are aware, but not everyone is happy about the FSF's own Free Documentation License. There's a long page about it at http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html but the summary is that surprisingly enough the license is not Free. Personally I would not be happy with the FDL either, but of course that's just me :-). I am prepared to argue with the FSF about that. But http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html does helpfully say: "occasionally we use other free documentation licenses" so that's encouraging. That web page suggests some alternatives: - For GPL'ed programs, licence the manual under the GPL (mutatis mutandis) - If you don't mind people making proprietary versions of your manual, use a permissive, non-copyleft license such as the X11 license. (The X11 license explicitly mentions documentation.) - If you have to use the GFDL for some reason, dual-licence your documentation under the program license. But there are other options, the best resource for which being http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeDocumentationLicenses especially since that list is officially acceptable with the FSF. To save searching since the link is broken, the FreeBSD doc license is: -=-=-=-=- Redistribution and use in source (SGML DocBook) and 'compiled' forms (SGML, HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF and so forth) with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code (SGML DocBook) must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer as the first lines of this file unmodified. 2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs, converted to PDF, PostScript, RTF and other formats) must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Important: THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FREEBSD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -=-=--=-=- The apple license could also not be read as the server was down. So here's Google's cache: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:d_swFDmNzqIJ:www.opensource.apple.com/cdl/ Personally I'm inclined to think the FreeBSD Documentation License is adequate (the Apple license just more legalese stuff and verbose, but equivalent as far as I can see), as I'm not too enamoured about making the documentation "Free" (as in FSF "Free") primarily because the point of eCos is the code, and the documentation is there to help, not an asset to be controlled. Other thoughts/options/opinions? Jifl -- eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine