Heyho! On Thursday 11 February 2010 16.07:13 Martin Sustrik wrote: > Adrian, > > > Important point for Debian (and possibly ohers): releasing the > > documentation under the same license as the software simplifies a lot. > > Is there any "best practice" for licensing the documentation. Does LGPL > in the root of the tree suffice or should there be separate license > header in each doc file?
I see that the manpages (as they are in the beta2 tarball - haven't looked
at the reworked stuff you did. Yes, I saw your announcement.) all carry a
copyright notice. So adding an explicit license statement would be nice.
(Personally, I hate long copyright blurbs. You probably can get away with
"shipped under the same terms as the ZeroMQ distribution" or something like
that.)
Though technically, the COPYING in the root of the tree *should* be
sufficient (it certainly is for me.) OTOH manpages are sometimes viewed out
of context (you'll find most manpages somewhere on the web, for example), so
having the license terms or at least a pointer right there is probably not a
bad idea.
cheers
-- vbi
--
When [visiting 6 conferences within 3 months] , it is, of course,
obligatory to determine which country has the best beer; normally,
substantial amounts of research are required.
-- Jonathan Corbet
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
