Uwe Stöhr wrote: >>>http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/DocumentationDevelopment >> >> This webpage says "All files are under the GNU Free Documentation >> License version 1.2", but the documentation was under GPL'd (as >> discussed on the list months ago). When was this changed? > > I didn't know about the license of the docs. LyX is under the GPL but > one of the original authors of the docs licensed his contributions under > the artistic license: > > http://www.lyx.org/about/blanket-permission.php > > I used the GFDL because I thought the GFDL is the GPL variant for > documentations and that GPL is a subset of the artistic license in the > way of its restrictions. I reverted the statement of the wiki page and > linked the GPL instead. I hope this is OK now. > > But as I'm always confused about the license stuff, could anybody > explain the differences between GPL, GFDL and artistic license in short > words?
See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php http://jan.netcomp.monash.edu.au/opendoc/paper.html It is entirely reasonable to publish the LyX docs under the GFDL. However, to do so you'll need to contact the primary authors of the docs and request their permission to licence their contributions under something that's at least compatible with the GFDL. As I understand it, the GPL is *not* compatible with the GFDL. However, I am not a lawyer. Others will be able to shed more light on this that me. So far, you've got John Weiss. His contributions can already be released under the GFDL. Regards, -- Angus
