Open Source Content License (OSCL) - Other/Miscellaneous licenses
Rick Moen
rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Apr 18 22:32:28 UTC 2008
Quoting Andrew Wilson (andrew.wilson at intel.com):
> Even FSF, to my knowledge, never uses GPL for any of their
> documentation.
Quoting http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html :
"Originally, all our documentation was released under a short
Copyleft license, or under the GNU General Public License (GPL)
itself."
> 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:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html
("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 linuxmafia.com denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart
More information about the License-review
mailing list