Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> He and Ryan are proposing the Open Publication License,
> http://www.opencontent.org/openpub, for all the books. I've looked at
> it and it seems to meet the standards of having a recognized license and
> protecting the books. If it is the community's decision, I have no
> problem with using this in BLFS. It is used by several organizations
> including:
>
I honestly don't know one license from the other. But the OPL looks like
it would protect LFS from being published by a 3rd party. Which is
really the main thing in my eyes.
> In addition to the main license, I also feel that the books should dual
> license the code (scripts and config files) in the the books with a very
> open license such as the AFL currently in BLFS or a BSD type of license.
> The reason is to basically leave the instructions unencumbered. For
> instance, IMO, the output of jhalfs should not have the requirements of
> the OPL, but with only one license there would be unnecessary overhead
> if the instructions are extracted from the books.
>
> Ryan suggested the GPL for the code, but that has a lot of overhead that
> I don't feel is necessary. For instance, there would be a need to put
> relatively long GPL statements in each file in the bootscripts and the
> need to include extra copyright files with the jhalfs output.
>
Just one scenario I'm curious about. Say I have a distro based on xLFS
and I would like to give it away/sell it. How is that going to affect
what I'm able to do (give away/sell). Under the OPL it looks like that
wouldn't be possible to do either without the author(s) permission.
Would the second license on code (scripts and config files) change this
scenario?
_______________________________________________
Clfs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfs-dev
