discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
6 Apr 2004 22:17:07 -0000
Message-Id: <20040406221700.GV22228@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rodolfo J. Paiz ####@####.####
> Not being too well-educated on the topic, can I just ask you to flat-out
> recommend one, so I can read one and see if I like it instead of having to
> read six (which isn't likely to happen)?
>
> I'd appreciate it if that were possible.
For many purposes, I personally like CC's "Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0" licence.
The name uses CC's admirably modular and clear licensing terminology:
Attribution: Requires crediting authors of the codebase in derivative
works. (By implication, this licence has the Derivs
property, i.e., is a forkable licence.) Copyright law
lets one either insist on attribution, or to waive it.
ShareAlike: Derivative works must have the same terms. I.e., it's
a copyleft licence.
The plain-English form of the Attribution-ShareAlike licence is at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ , which also hyperlinks
to the lawyerly "Legal Code" (full licence) rendition on a separate
page.
If you have time, look briefly over the matrix of CC licences at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ , even if you don't read any of the
linked licence texts: That page is useful as a map to what permutations
of permission grants are possible.
