Remco Seesink wrote: > I want to advise a license for documentation, and know > there are problems with the GFDL. So I thought of the > Creative Commons Attribution license but that appears > to have problems too. > > What documentation license can I advise? > > If more context needed, see below.
> From: Remco Seesink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 12.07.2004 10:14 > To: Stefan Heymann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Manuals gbak, gfix and gsec > > Hello, > > Great! > How about using the "Initial Developer's PUBLIC LICENSE" Version 1.0 for them? > This license is used by firebird developers to license new code. > > Here is the (long) text: > http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=ibphoenix&page=ibp_idpl > > Your manuals might even make it back into the main firebird tree. I believe you made exactly the right recommendation: license the documentation under the same license as the work it documents. This makes it far easier to use code samples in the document or integrate documentation with the code. See also answer 8 in the DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), and Nathaniel Nerode's "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL" (http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html). That said, the DFSG-freeness of the Mozilla Public License, which the license you suggested is based on, is currently under debate, and leaning towards saying that the license is non-free. Because of that, I would suggest licensing the manual under the GNU GPL, either instead of or in addition to the license used for the Firebird database. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
