On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:52 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote: > On 2007-12-16 22:43:18 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > a) GNU Free Documentation License > > > > b) Creative Commons (Attribution-Share Alike?) > > > > It could also be dual-licensed to both to maximize the distribution > > possibilities. > > CC Share Alike 3 > > GFDL has some sucking part about the license when using parts of the > documentation.
I'm not sure if this would matter or not, but... Debian has previously said that the CC licenses are not DFSG-free. From what I can see, no opinion has been released on the version 3 licenses. See: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian A dual-license of GFDL (without invariant sections) and CC SA 3 should be okay with Debian, though. (I'm not a DD and am not speaking for the project.) Dovecot is MIT & LGPL, so why not choose one of those? The only down-side of an MIT license is that someone could take the work and put it into a non-free product. With documentation, the biggest potential problem would be someone making a Dovecot book. If you're not worried about that, really a Public Domain declaration should work. Here's what Wikipedia uses: This [content] has been released into the public domain by its author, [NAME]. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: [NAME] grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Richard
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
