Free documentation licenses

[SamBC]

I have written such a license (IMHO) which is pending approval by OSI,
and has been 'ok'ed for use on Sourceforge (who generally require OSI
approval). It can be found at

http://www.simpleLinux.org/legal/sLODL.html

It's still not completely finished - I am waiting for feedback here
(possibly some more constructive than the usual 'why bothers' I have
received, asking why use a seperate doc license at all) before I
finalise it.

However, looking at your points, it may still be too restrictive for
you - but you may as well just use the GPL - the license you propose
isn't really a license as such, just a copyright with some brief,
clearly stated permissions and restrictions. I like the simpleLinux Open
Documnetation License (by me) as it ensures that not only is the
authorship never misrepresented, but also that content added later by a
person outside the controlling organisation is impossible to confuse
with original text. It also provides protection against
misrepresentation when people quote it.

I like it anyway - see what you think...


SamBC

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Johnson" <david at usermode.org>
To: "License-Discuss" <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 7:26 AM
Subject: Free documentation licenses


> I am in the process of writing a user manual and did some checking
around for
> appropriate free licenses. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything
suitable.
> The GFDL is just too much and contains undesired restrictions. Other
licenses
> listed on the GNU page were not applicable either, for pretty much the
same
> reasons listed by RMS. The Nupedia license is also unacceptable for
various
> reasons. Variations of any of the above might work.
>
> So, any alternatives out there that I missed? I'm thinking of writing
my own
> if there is no alternative available. In such a case, a very rough
draft
> follows. I want something short, simple and to the point. I was
thinking of
> some form of weak copyleft, but I don't know how applicable it would
be to a
> document since the content would always be available. I'm also
wondering
> whether an attribution requirement would cause any problems.
>
> ---
> [Free Text License]
> Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
> All rights reserved.
>
> Redistribution of this document, with or without modification, is
permitted
> provided that the following conditions are met:
>
> Redistributions must retain the above copyright notice, this list of
> conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> Redistributions must not misrepresent the authorship of this document.
>
> Neither the name of the author(s) nor the names of its contributors
may be
> used to endorse or promote products derived from this document without
> specific prior written permission.
>
> THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
``AS IS''
> WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED
> TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE.
>
> --
> David Johnson
> ___________________
> http://www.usermode.org
>