On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 16:01 -0600, Richard Laager wrote: > 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)
Was there something optional, or do you mean I should modify it myself?.. I remember GFDL wasn't Debian-compatible either earlier. > Dovecot is MIT & LGPL, so why not choose one of those? I thought those wouldn't apply well to documentation. Although I suppose MIT could work. > 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. Isn't it already possible with GFDL/CC? Although I guess it could require the book to be under the same license as well. > If you're not worried about that, really a Public Domain declaration > should work. Somehow I don't feel good about giving away my copyrights, even if I would never do anything useful with them.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
