Open Source Content License (OSCL) - Other/Miscellaneous licenses

Rick Moen rick at
Fri Apr 18 22:32:28 UTC 2008

Quoting Andrew Wilson (andrew.wilson at

> Even FSF, to my knowledge, never uses GPL for any of their
> documentation.

Quoting :
   "Originally, all our documentation was released under a short
   Copyleft license, or under the GNU General Public License (GPL)

> Using GPL, or any other SW license, for text strikes me
> as not a good idea.  

On what grounds, exactly?  The applicability of, e.g., new-BSD or GPL to
documentation is straightforward:  The "preferred form" is the editable
format for purposes of modifications, etc.  Compatibility with
accompanying software works for purposes of possible future creation of
derivatives becomes less of a problem, and the licence can be a familiar
one with known effects.  More analysis can be read here:
("Applying Copyleft to Non-Software Information", by Michael Stutz)

Cheers,           "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
Rick Moen         those who do.  And, for the people who like country music,
rick at         denigrate means 'put down'."      -- Bob Newhart

More information about the License-review mailing list