[<<] [<] Page 2 of 2 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: HOWTO under my own license
From: Rick Moen ####@####.#### Date: 17 Jun 2005 22:40:06 -0000 Message-Id: <20050617224001.GO5977@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.#### > :-) To brew up some discussion, what license would you use for > documentation you write for an open source project? Well, as that one URL you cited mentioned, if you're referring to an open-source _software_ project, then there's something to be said for using the same licence as is used for the codebase. That means that, among other things, if it's ever necessary to embed portions of the docs (beyond what "fair use" permits) into the code, that can be done without getting separate permission from copyright holders. Also, that way, you can be confident that users of the codebase will find your documentation's licence acceptable (since they've already done so once). But those considerations apply, really, only if your doc will be shipped with the codebase or is likely to ever be so. Otherwise, the usual considerations apply: If you want to prevent proprietary forks, use a copyleft licence. If you wish to encourage the widest possible usage, use a simple permissive one. If you want to be able to legally suppress derivative works that horrify you, use some sort of proprietary licence. And, of course, you might even ask the intended audience "I'm thinking of using [licence foo] for my documentation. Any of you have significant problems with that?" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: HOWTO under my own license
From: David Lawyer ####@####.#### Date: 18 Jun 2005 05:25:33 -0000 Message-Id: <20050618024124.GA2393@lafn.org> > Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.#### > > > I am not sure what I should do in this situation. Can I just > > re-license my document under MIT-style license? > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:02:38PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > As sole copyright holder, you can issue instances of your property with > whatever permission grants you wish attached to each of them. So, yes. > > > Does it conflict with LDP policies? > No. All correct. When you relicense a doc, it doesn't revoke the old license for people who obtained it under the old license. Since those people can continue to distribute it under the old license, then it may continue to be distributed under the old license (as well as the new one). Of course if you revise the work and put the revision under the new license, then the revision is obviously not under the old license anymore (but the old version still is). David Lawyer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 2 of 2 [>] [>>] |