Mike Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list: > What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
The MIT/X11 license, the new BSD license, the Sleepycat license, and the GPL are all Free documentation licenses. Using the same license as your software makes it easy to copy examples and code snippets in one direction, and informative information into comments in the other. Most copyleft licenses which specify source format or transmission method in detail have problems for printed documentation -- if the Emacs manual were under the GPL, every copy printed and sold would have to contain a copy of the source in machine-readable form -- maybe a CD in the back? -- or the publisher would have to keep an archive of source. That's not a problem for ORA or other huge publishers, but it's a big problem for a person who just wants to print out a copy and hand it to a friend, or print a dozen copies of one chapter for a class. > How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark > rights in documentation? By all means put appropriate licenses on your trademarks to protect them. You probably want to require that anybody who's not you has to remove them if they modify the document. But please don't do that in the copyright license. A requirement that the letters "d" and "b" not be used in proximity would be unpleasant. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
