Free documentation licenses

[SamBC]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <cowan at locke.ccil.org>


> > What if, however, as in my case, you are writing standalone
> > documentation to software you did not produce,
>
> The same applies.  If the software can be changed under given
conditions,
> it should be possible to change the documentation under the same
conditions,
> or the two cannot be kept mutually up-to-date.  A GPLed program should
> have GPLed documentation; a BSDed program should have BSDed
documentation,
> IMHO.

The docs I am doing are intended to supplement official stuff, not be
canonical.

I created the license to go with a WiP suite of beginners (I mean
*really* beginners) docs for Linux. That applies to so many programs,
not all of them GPL/LGPL, so it needs to be flexible. Get the idea? Not
terribly important for this list anyway - unless people watnt to discuss
my license (please).

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

>
> > or detailing techniques,
> > or even an academic treatise... the sLODL is suitable for all...
>
> Those cases are out of my scope.
>

The idea being it is a flexible license for all sorts of written works,
delivered electronically (or otherwise)