From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from brazil.sys.kcco.com (leg-66-247-92-2-CHI.sprinthome.com [66.247.92.2]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2EAABD71 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 15:56:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from brazil.sys.kcco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brazil.sys.kcco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E498C1EB3; Fri, 3 May 2002 15:57:55 -0500 (CDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Jean-Michel Smith To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org, Bjarke =?iso-8859-1?q?S=F8rensen?= , Sherman Boyd Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How should Gentoo docs be licensed? Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:57:55 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20020502201540.GA32632@wasd.dk> In-Reply-To: <20020502201540.GA32632@wasd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200205031557.55331.jsmith@kcco.com> Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 14c0e61f-6b22-45e5-b521-a864c8509524 X-Archives-Hash: 1f552541a874b7a0bc524f85899edbeb On Thursday 02 May 2002 03:15 pm, Bjarke S=F8rensen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:04:26AM -0700, Sherman Boyd wrote: > > How should Gentoo docs be licensed? I know of two documentation > > licenses, the GFDL and the OPL. Anyone know of any alternatives? > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html > > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ > > > > Both licenses are seem good to me, but I am not a copyright lawyer. = The > > GFDL is definitely longer, and more specific. The OPL is short and > > clean, easily understood by a layperson. > > Is this settled yet? > Or should I bring my 5 cents? Well, here's my $0.50 worth. :-) overview of documentation licenses at=20 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses [ quote ] The following licenses do qualify as free documentation licenses:=20 The GNU Free Documentation License. This is a license intended for use on copylefted free documentation. = We=20 plan to adopt it for all GNU manuals. The FreeBSD Documentation License This is a permissive non-copyleft Free Documentation license that is=20 compatible with the GNU FDL. The Apple's Common Documentation License, Version 1.0 This is a Free Documentation license that is incompatible with the GN= U=20 FDL. It is incompatible because Section (2c) says "You add no other terms= or=20 conditions to those of this License", and the GNU FDL has additional term= s=20 not accounted for in the Common Documentation License. Open Publication License, Version 1.0. This license can be used as a free documentation license. It is a=20 copyleft free documentation license provided the copyright holder does no= t=20 exercise any of the "LICENSE OPTIONS" listed in Section VI of the license= =2E=20 But if either of the options is invoked, the license becomes non-free. [ end quote ] The important thing to note about the OPL is that it has two options whic= h, if=20 either one is invoked, make the license non-free. For that reason, it is= =20 IMHO best to avoid using that license, and the potential confusion that c= ould=20 be caused if portions of the documentation contributed were to invoke eit= her=20 of the options making it non-free. FWIW any docs accepted by the Source Mage (Formerly Sorcerer) Project as=20 "official" documentation must be FDLed. I don't know how much=20 cross-referencing between the two distro's docs there would ever be (the = two=20 distros are quite different in several basic respects), but it might be n= ice=20 if as many GPL projects as possible contributed their documentation in=20 licenses compatible with one another, as we all (for the most part) do wi= th=20 our code. :-) The FDL is a little long to read, but it is quite straightforward. The=20 various restrictions are basically for publishers ... what can and cannot= be=20 changed in the document itself, on the cover, etc. FWIW I am releasing a= ll=20 of my own fictional works under the FDL (in addition to a Free Media Lice= nse=20 to allow people like film students to make movies from the material, so l= ong=20 as said movies are in turn freely usable and modifiable by others, but th= at=20 is a tangent for another day). If your goal is to have documentation ent= er a=20 public commons from which cannot be stolen but to which anything may be=20 contributed or modified, a la the GPL, the FDL (or perhaps the FreeBSD=20 Documentation License) seems to work pretty well. The OPL would have wor= ked,=20 if only they hadn't included the optional 'features' that lead to some OP= L=20 works being free and some not (and no obvious distinction without digging= =20 into the nitty gritty of the specific licensed work in question). Jean.