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

[Ernest Prabhakar]

On Apr 18, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> Even FSF, to my knowledge, never uses GPL for any of their
> documentation.

I agree.  In fact, the only group I know that uses their source code  
license for their documentation is FreeBSD, since the BSD license  
works reasonably well for both. I'd encourage you to consider that as  
your "default".  If you do need to offer something stronger, though,  
then Andy's suggestion probably makes the most sense.

- Ernie P.

>
> Using GPL, or any other SW license, for text strikes me
> as not a good idea.  I would suggest the following: using a
> designed-for-text license for human-language documents,
> such as Creative Commons or GFDL, and a designed-for-code OSI approved
> license, such as GPL or BSD, for any computer-language code
> examples those documents contain.  Specify the licensing scheme
> in the front matter for the document.
>
> IANAL, TINLA.
>
> Andy Wilson
> Intel open source technology center