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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from 9000.wasd.dk (unknown [195.54.80.83]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 81892ABD50 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:39:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 19962 invoked by uid 1001); 3 May 2002 21:39:13 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 23:39:13 +0200 From: Bjarke =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8rensen?= To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How should Gentoo docs be licensed? Message-ID: <20020503213913.GF7376@wasd.dk> References: <20020502201540.GA32632@wasd.dk> <200205031557.55331.jsmith@kcco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200205031557.55331.jsmith@kcco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i 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: c2acc8b5-9a51-4af2-acc6-fe76b89f731e X-Archives-Hash: 1e112ca4a3be6b314219a57865a71606 On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 03:57:55PM -0500, Jean-Michel Smith wrote: > On Thursday 02 May 2002 03:15 pm, Bjarke Sørensen 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? > overview of documentation licenses at > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses > The GNU Free Documentation License. > This is a license intended for use on copylefted free documentation. We > plan to adopt it for all GNU manuals. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html > The FDL is a little long to read, but it is quite straightforward. The > various restrictions are basically for publishers ... what can and cannot be > changed in the document itself, on the cover, etc. FWIW I am releasing all > of my own fictional works under the FDL (in addition to a Free Media License > to allow people like film students to make movies from the material, so long > as said movies are in turn freely usable and modifiable by others, but that > is a tangent for another day). If your goal is to have documentation enter a > public commons from which cannot be stolen but to which anything may be > contributed or modified, a la the GPL, the FDL (or perhaps the FreeBSD > Documentation License) seems to work pretty well. The OPL would have worked, > if only they hadn't included the optional 'features' that lead to some OPL > works being free and some not (and no obvious distinction without digging > into the nitty gritty of the specific licensed work in question). I'll vote for that. I'll use this on the guides I write myself to (for non-gentoo-stuff too). Not that you care? I know you are busy. But I won't release anything 'till this i settled. Cheers! -- | 9000.WASD | | Bjarke Sørensen | http://wasd.dk/ | | There are 10 types of people in this world: | Those who understand binary, and those who don't.