On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:20:13AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:16:34AM -0600, DDP CVS wrote: > > CVSROOT: /cvs/debian-doc > > Module name: ddp > > Changes by: jfs 03/05/18 10:16:34 > > > > Modified files: > > manuals.sgml/ddp-policy/en: common.sgml > > > > Log message: > > Added information on the (approved) TLDP license > > You need to be careful here. The LDP has several licences, some of which > are free and some of which aren't. The discussion on debian-legal to > which you refer was about http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html; however, > you're recommending http://www.tldp.org/manifesto.html, which is a > different licence and at best requires complicated manoeuvrings to > exercise the relicense-under-GPL option before it becomes free. On its > own, it's non-free, because it requires derivative works to be sent to > the LDP. > > Please change manifesto.html to COPYRIGHT.html (careful about case - > copyright.html is even more non-free ...), and refer to it not as the > "boilerplate license" but as the "Linux Documentation Project License > v2.0" or "LDPL 2.0".
What license do people you recommend for new Debian documentation? I'm working on a newbie help program which I initially made GPL; but it's really mostly documentation. Also, we're almost ready to start the new install manual. -- Debian GNU/Linux Operating System By the People, For the People Chris Tillman (a people instance)
