Follow-up Comment #6, task #16461 (project administration):
[comment #5 comment #5:] > [comment #4 comment #4:] > > Yes, I forgot to also license the generated html files. I just added the notices. > > Did I say, "HTML"? Do you mean HTML? And a question with an asterisk: are all added notices valid? The HTML documentation is the only one that I generated, so I assumed that's what you were talking about. The doxygen webpage states the following: "Documents produced by doxygen are derivative works derived from the input used in their production; they are not affected by this license." My understanding is that I can choose any license for the produced documents. If that was not the case, using doxygen would force me to also use GPLv2. > > > The section containing the GNU Free Documentation License can be found in the tree view on the left-hand side or from "Related Pages" in the top menu. > > I see neither the tree view nor the top menu with my browser. Hmm... just to be on the same page: Are we talking about the generated HTML-documentation? Out of curiosity and to trouble shoot: Which browser do you use? > > > Regarding doxygen.conf: Are you concerned that the file should inherit the license of doxygen because of all the boilerplate code? > > You are right. > > > I dropped all default lines and kept only the ones I changed; then, it shouldn't be an issue. > > Why not? The file is still derived, isn't it? Well, ... technically it is. But taking pieces from the doxygen manual to construct a doxygen.conf is also derived, isn't it? So am I forced into GPLv2 when using doxygen? I assumed the license requirements are less prohibitive. Thoughts? I suppose the easy way out is to strip off the doxygen.conf and generated documentation and leave it to interested people to run doxygen themselves. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16461> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/