Re: documentation license?
Hi Jakob, For simplicity, you can also dual license. Documentation, as part of the code, is GPL (or LGPL or X11 if my wishes come true) but, documentation can also be distributed under a Creative Commons license of Alex' choice. 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? This way an O'Reilly Picolisp book could more easily come true... (another daydream I have. Not that I would write it mind you - I just want it my shelf.) You could ask Mansur Mamkin to send you a copy of his book ;-) Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: documentation license?
Hi Jakob, I quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses which is an excellent page by the way. Thanks! But MIT license for everything would make me be quiet and happy, too. OK, I see. I must say that I also more and more tend to MIT/X11. It is so very short and simple! Almost nothing left to be confused :-) 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. I'm not sure if he mentioned it also here, or only on IRC. Perhaps he can say more to it, but he collected references and other available documentation, and had a friend produce a bound copy. @Mansur: Would you mind sending your nice picture to this list? It is really a beautiful design :-) Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: documentation license?
Hi Edwin, what's the license of the documentation that comes with picoLisp? I assumed that it is also under the GPL until now, as the GPL is the only license included in the distribution. As we are currently discussing the license issue, what would be your proposal for the documentation? Is a separate license preferable? I think the documentation is tightly coupled and in sync with the code, so I felt that it should be under the same license as the code. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: documentation license?
Hi Alex, On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de wrote: Hi Edwin, what's the license of the documentation that comes with picoLisp? I assumed that it is also under the GPL until now, as the GPL is the only license included in the distribution. As we are currently discussing the license issue, what would be your proposal for the documentation? Is a separate license preferable? no proposal from here. :) just asking. it's more of a mental preparation for future projects. I think the documentation is tightly coupled and in sync with the code, so I felt that it should be under the same license as the code. thank you. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
documentation license?
Hi Alex, what's the license of the documentation that comes with picoLisp? best, /e -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
