Jeremy Hankins wrote: > How about dual licensing? License it under both the GPL (or whatever > license the software you're documenting uses -- see below) and the > CC-by.
That's a thought... it's a good thought. I'll discuss that with the others. > But if you dual license now, when the time comes that you can switch > entirely to your preferred license, you quietly drop the CC-by with no > extra fuss. Switching licenses is *hard* when you have a lot of > contributors to contact and get approval from. Well, I do like the CC-BY very much and wouldn't want to drop it. But your point about dual licensing is still strong. > As for which other license to use, think about the possibility that you > will want your license to be compatible with that of the software you > document. Someone down the road may want to use excerpts from your > documentation as context help, or something like that. If the licenses > are incompatible that may not be possible -- at least not without > jumping some legal hoops. I hadn't thought of that. I'm glad you mentioned it. The situation is a tad complicated, but not too much. OpenOffice.org is dual-licensed (LGPL/SISSL). I wouldn't want the documentation to be triple licensed. However, I could make it GPL/CC-BY, and that would still work for GNU/Linux distros. Because OOo has a GPL-compatible license, a distro could ship OOo plus the docs, all under the GPL. I like the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I'll ask our editor what she thinks. After she and I talk about it, we'll bring this up to the rest of the gang. My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]