You sure, if the wiki is FDL and we use parts of it in the Documentation, it can be PDL? Then we could also keep the PDL for our wiki, since we are "copying some" parts of another FDL documentation.
Otherwise, couldn't we amend the given FDL with something like a liability disclaimer? R, Markus ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 25.02.2010 07:35:34 Subject: [ArchServer-General] Documentation License > Hi all, > > I'd like to raise a question about licensing for the documentation -- At the > moment it's under PDL [1], but to be compatible with the license of the Arch > Linux Wiki, we need to use the FDL [2]. > > Personally I would prefer to keep the PDL over the FDL -- from what I can > tell it is less onerous and more free for the end-user; for example see > section 3 of the FDL. Also, the FDL does not include any warranty or > liability disclaimer notices which I think it important for covering our > butts when we're talking about official documentation for systems that could > (eventually) be used in some critical environments. We need to ensure the > project as a whole as well as the individuals within it are protected as > best as possible. > > I'd like to see our official documentation under PDL, and the wiki can be > under either FDL the same as the Arch Linux wiki, or PDL also. > > Thoughts from others? > > [1] http://docs.archserver.org/index.php?page=license > [2] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html > _______________________________________________ ArchServer Project General Mail List Post messages to: [email protected] Administer your subscription: http://lists.archserver.org/listinfo/general
