Jesse Ross wrote:
The FreeBSD documentation license
(http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html) is fairly
similar to the modified BSD license. It is, however, missing the third
clause (The name of the author may not be used to endorse ... without
specific prior written permission.) which I think would be a good idea
to have. Also, the distinction between source and compiled forms is
probably unnecessary.
I think the differentiation between source and compiled is necessary, so
that the copyright notice gets added to printed work (otherwise the
copyright doesn't travel with, say a PDF or a book).
Yes, I do understand this. The license, however, need only protect the
*content*, not the *formatting*. Do you get what I'm saying?
I think the 3rd clause may not be a good idea (which is why the FreeBSD
folks pulled it out), as people may want to publish the documentation in
dead-tree form, and they would have to ask us if they can put 'Etoile
Project' on the 'Etoile Project Documentation'... I'm not sure what else
they would call it and it could be a logistic hassle if they do need to
get in contact with us. Thoughts?
This is no problem. The restriction only applies to when the document
has been changed. As long as they leave the text of the document intact
they can do whatever they want.
_______________________________________________
Etoile-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
