On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:39:43 +0200, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>
wrote:
> 
> What would be the advantage if the documentation is under a separate
> license? And what if we change the GPL of the code to BSD or MIT,
> wouldn't it be much more clear and simple if also the docs were BSD or
> MIT? Is there any significant difference between the code and its
> documentation?

You can do this, of course. MIT is so free, I would work excellently with
docs too. The significant difference, is that in the case of GPL and LGPL,
you might want to "protect" the docs less, in case you want to encourage
people to lift documentation sections into proprietary dead tree books.
(Like O'Reillys.)

I quote from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses 
which is an excellent page by the way.

"The GNU GPL can be used for general data which is not software, as long
as one
can determine what the definition of “source code” refers to in the
particular case."

But MIT license for everything would make me be quiet and happy, too.



> 
> You could ask Mansur Mamkin to send you a copy of his book ;-)

Is he working on a book? If it was mentioned on the list I must have
missed it.

// Jakob


-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to