Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > On 10 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On an unrelated note, it would be best if the documentation > > specifies a license. The GPL is not very appropriate for > > documentation. Personally I'd prefer a non-restrictive Creative > > Commons license: > > > http://creativecommons.org/license/ > > > Any other choice is fine by me, too. It's just best if this is > > decided early so that this is clear to potential future > > contributors. > I am not a lawyer, so I don't care; but I would add that any license > that allows greater accessibility is better in my eyes.
Yes. You don't necessarily have to specify a license. That would mean everytime someone wants to use a non-trivial portion of it, they would have to ask you for permission. Maybe some pedantic distributions wouldn't ship the documentation at all then. > Ie, some web site (wikipedia, etc.) only accept a certain license? Does > Debian or any other distribution only accept doc with certain licenses? AFAIK, Debian downgrades any code more free than the GNU GPL (like BSD licensed code) to the GPL i.e., applies the GPL to modified files and build scripts. > The developing world license is also interesting... Never heard of that. > Anyways, The "GnuFU" document is the GNU document license. That one is a bit confusing because it claims being licensed under this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License That maybe be "free" compared to the usual book in your favourite library but the specified requirements are rather a PITA. But also under this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ The latter forbids commercial use. Albeit another mirror claims this license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Which does not forbid commercial use and which the license I would favour because it does not require a lawyer to understand it and that's what I call "free" in contrast to "GNU free". If SuSE (or whatever purchasable OS) ships with Gtk-Gnutella isn't that commercial use since they charge for it? Of course they don't charge for any packages in special rather the medium and support of the OS. > I think it is ok to quote other "open source" documents [or anything] as > long as you attribute and keep the quotation minimal. However, I do have a > quandary of incorporating these links, > > "http://basis.gnufu.net/gnufu/index.php/GnuFU_en"; > "http://www.jraitala.net/comp/articles/2002/pppoe/"; The PPPoE stuff is nice to have but if inclusion of it requires choice of a less free license we should rather keep it out of it. It's not essential and most users don't have the choice. I'm surprised there are still operating systems which handle PPPoE in userspace anyway. Yes, my 486 cares quite a lot. You can also just link to the website and sum it up in your own words which does not conflict with whatever license they use. > They both have different licenses... Same thing as BSD vs Mozilla vs > GPL vs other OSS with code. Hence my ostrich like stance. > Hans de Graaff started the document. Did Hans have a preference > and/or care at all? If not, the GNU document license is fine given no > other reasons, preferences. That said, I don't care that much about the license either if you don't care. It may be as free as "public domain" or as non-free as you prefer. However if you want to explicitely prevent or allow any kind of certain use, you better specify this as soon as possible because once multiple people have contributed to it under assumption of these terms, it's virtually impossible to modify them. -- Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
