On 04/23/2015 09:19 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 07:49:48PM -0400, John Snow wrote:=== v6: === 01: s/underlaying/underlying/ Removed a reference to 'disabled' bitmaps. Touching up inconsistent list indentation. Added FreeBSD Documentation License, primarily to be difficultPlease stick to the currently used set of licenses in the future, unless you have a strong reason. It's not a good use of anyone's time to fuss with licenses when we have enough of them in the codebase already. In my non-lawyer opinion the license you chose seems okay but I'd rather avoid the risk and hassle. Thanks, Stefan
I know I said "primarily to be difficult" but I was just being facetious. I didn't find the GPL2+ to be suitable for documentation, strictly, so I went to read up on the documentation licenses that the fsf support/recommend.
There's the GNU documentation license, but I found that unsuitable for a couple reasons -- one of them was that you are forbidden(!) from changing the text of the license, and there are some provisions in there I didn't like, such as requiring the full text of the license to be included with compiled copies of the document. That's not something I care about -- a reference in source, for instance, is sufficient, or a copy of the license being distributed *with* the compiled source is fine, but I have no need for the full license to be copied with the compiled version.
The other documentation license the fsf recommends is the FreeBSD one, and that one looked appealing, short, and to the point, so it is the one I chose. It is essentially the FreeBSD license with words altered to clarify what "code" and "source" means with respect to a document.
Sorry for /actually/ being difficult; but Eric Blake was urging me to select a license instead of relying on the implicit GPL, so I did go out of my way to choose one I found appropriate.
I stand by my pick. --js
