Free documentation licenses

[Mitchell Baker]

We're also trying to figure out a documentation license for the Mozilla 
Project.  One reason we've talked about using the same license for 
documentation and code is that it can be difficult to separate the two.  
For example, the Help documentation is included in electronic format as 
part of the source code.  It seems odd to treat this documentation under 
one license in this format and under another license if it's printed.  
And even odder to say that the help documentation in the code is not 
governed by the MPL, but by a different documenation license.

Has anyone sorted through this type of problem?

Apologies if this has been discussed and I missed the thread. 

Mitchell

John Cowan wrote:

> kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> No, it is specific to documentation, so long as the documentation
>> doesn't incorporate code from the project.
> 
> My point was that it is convenient for documentation and software to
> be under the same license, so that the same set of persons can make
> revisions to both in synchrony.
> 
> If the software were BSD and the doco GPL, then if I make a proprietary
> version of the software, then I have two unpalatable alternatives:
> write a manual for the proprietary version from scratch, or issue the
> manual for the proprietary version under the GPL.
> 
> If the software were GPL and the doco BSD, then if anyone rewrote the
> doco for greater clarity or some such, then he would be able to make
> the improved version proprietary and prevent it from being distributed
> with current or future releases of the program.
> 
> 
>> Software and its accompanying documentation are generally considered two
>> seperate works.  There is no licensing compatibility requirement between
>> the docs and the code.  Even where short samples of code could be used
>> in the document, they could be incorporated under fair use 107
>> exemptions or (possibly) by turning the document as a whole into a
>> collective work.
> 
> I agree; my argument speaks to expediency, not necessity.
> 
> 
>>  I don't believe there's anything in the GNU GPL, e.g.,
>> which prohibits publishing of the source code within a book, so long as
>> the source itself is clearly identified as GPLd.
> 
> I can't see this.  A book which incorporates all of another textual work
> strikes me as a paradigm case of a derivative work.  IANAL, but such a book
> looks clearly derivative of the source code and as such would have to be
> published under the GPL.
>  
> 
>> Your example is backwards:  newBSD/MIT software can be relicensed under
>> GPL.  GPLd software cannot be relicensed, by third parties, under any
>> other license (barring GPL versioning allowances), without specific
>> authorization from the copyright holder(s).
> 
> The term "relicense" should be avoided, as it leads to wifty thinking.
> No one but the copyright holder can "relicense" anything, in the
> sense of changing the license.
> 
> You can create a *derivative* work containing BSD parts and GPL parts,
> and license the whole work under the GPL.  You cannot license the
> whole work under the BSD license.  You also cannot change the licenses
> of the parts.  In particular, I can extract a BSD-licensed component
> from a GPL-licensed work and use it in derivative works under the
> BSD
> license.
>