discuss: Thread: licenses

Since there is discussion of reviewing existing documents and hopefully 
coming up with standard document templates I thought that I would 
mention something. I looked at the GNU Free Documentation License 
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html) and it seems like you must 
include a complete copy of the license in any document that you want to 
be covered by the license. It looks like most HOWTOs refer to the 
license but don't actually include it, and I suspect that is a problem.

And there is something else. The GNU Free Documentation License is not 
on the list of licenses approved by http://www.opensource.org. Is that a 
problem?

I'm still new to this stuff so let me know if I'm off base here.
-- 
Eric (Rick) Meyerhoff

"I looked at the GNU Free Documentation
>License (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html) and it seems like you must 
>include a complete copy of the license in any document that you want to be 
>covered by the license. It looks like most HOWTOs refer to the license but 
>don't actually include it, and I suspect that is a problem."
It can be, but there are many documents which do this (outside the tldp), 
I'm not sure whether you are required to include the license or required to 
provide a link to the license, eg. web reference.
My document includes a copy of the license, 
http://www.karakas-online.de/gnu-linux-tools-summary/

">And there is something else. The GNU Free Documentation License is
>not on the list of licenses approved by http://www.opensource.org. Is that 
>a problem?"
I'm not sure why its not listed, maybe its because its designed for 
documentation and not software....(well GNU defined free software, so I 
think that it would be Open-source :))....

Or maybe its because of the controversy of the front/back cover issue (if 
they are there you can't remove them which could be considered a restriction 
in freedom...).

Anyway, its quite safe to use the license to protect your work as it 
enforces freedom just like the GPL does for software.

Gareth
>From: Rick Meyerhoff ####@####.####
>To: ####@####.####
>Subject: licenses
>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:49:59 -0600
>
>Since there is discussion of reviewing existing documents and hopefully 
>coming up with standard document templates I thought that I would mention 
>something. I looked at the GNU Free Documentation License 
>(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html) and it seems like you must include a 
>complete copy of the license in any document that you want to be covered by 
>the license. It looks like most HOWTOs refer to the license but don't 
>actually include it, and I suspect that is a problem.
>
>And there is something else. The GNU Free Documentation License is not on 
>the list of licenses approved by http://www.opensource.org. Is that a 
>problem?
>
>I'm still new to this stuff so let me know if I'm off base here.
>--
>Eric (Rick) Meyerhoff
>
>
>
>______________________
>http://lists.tldp.org/
>

_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:54:54 +1100
"Guru -" ####@####.#### wrote:

> "I looked at the GNU Free Documentation
> >License (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html) and it seems like you
> >must include a complete copy of the license in any document that you
> >want to be covered by the license. It looks like most HOWTOs refer to
> >the license but don't actually include it, and I suspect that is a
> >problem."
> It can be, but there are many documents which do this (outside the
> tldp), I'm not sure whether you are required to include the license or
> required to provide a link to the license, eg. web reference.
> My document includes a copy of the license, 
> http://www.karakas-online.de/gnu-linux-tools-summary/
> 
> ">And there is something else. The GNU Free Documentation License is
> >not on the list of licenses approved by http://www.opensource.org. Is
> >that a problem?"
> I'm not sure why its not listed, maybe its because its designed for 
> documentation and not software....(well GNU defined free software, so
> I think that it would be Open-source :))....
> 
> Or maybe its because of the controversy of the front/back cover issue
> (if they are there you can't remove them which could be considered a
> restriction in freedom...).
> 
> Anyway, its quite safe to use the license to protect your work as it 
> enforces freedom just like the GPL does for software.

Just remember, if you use the GDL your documentation won't be included
in any Debian software (at least not in main), as it is not conpatable
with the Debian Free Software Guidlines. As a user (and sometimes
reviewer) of documentation, I don't see how the GDL gets you anything
more then the GPL; and sometimes gets you less.

Thomas