discuss: Thread: HOWTO under my own license

I sent this e-mail to Guylhem Aznar ####@####.#### as 
instructed in the LDP license, but it seems the e-mail is invalid. 
Please forward it to the appropriate person.

Hi,

     I am the author of the Ncurses Programming HOWTO. I released it in
January 2001 and it's been under LDP license since then. I would like to
distribute it along with the official Ncurses package (maintained by
Thomas Dickey). He sent me an e-mail with following issues.

---Quoting Thomas Dickey ####@####.#### --

  > Will it be possible to include the HOWTO along with the ncurses
  > distribution? You can just include the PDF, if that's appropriate.

I'm not sure.  Here's what I see as the issue:

      a) ncurses is (excepting for tack, which is not an integral part)
         all MIT-style license.

      b) the HOWTO states that it uses the LDP license.

      c) when I checked on that, I only see that it (LDP) is a set of
         guidelines for licenses.

It would make it simplest if there were source (even the SGML) and it used
BSD-style or MIT-style license.  Adding something that was GPL would
create a headache.
---Quoting ends --

     I am not sure what I should do in this situation. Can I just
re-license my document under MIT-style license? Does it conflict with
LDP policies?

Thanks,
--pradeep

Hi

>
>     I am not sure what I should do in this situation. Can I just
> re-license my document under MIT-style license? Does it conflict with
> LDP policies?
>
> Thanks,
> --pradeep

If you are the sole author you are free to relicense it to MIT. If 
others have contributors you need to talk and convince them before you 
do this. LDP doesnt have any policies that prevents you from changing 
the license of your document

regards
Rahul

>>     I am not sure what I should do in this situation. Can I just
>> re-license my document under MIT-style license? Does it conflict with
>> LDP policies?
 >
> If you are the sole author you are free to relicense it to MIT. If 
> others have contributors you need to talk and convince them before you 
> do this. LDP doesnt have any policies that prevents you from changing 
> the license of your document

I am the sole author. Is MIT license more or less restrictive than LDP 
license? The LDP license mentions that it has cannot be more restrictive.

For changing the license, can I just add the new license and remove the 
old one? Do I have to mention that it was licensed under a different one 
earlier?

I am a bit new to this licensing stuff. Please point me to any relevant 
documents, if there are any.

--pradeep

> regards
> Rahul

Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.####

> I am the sole author. Is MIT license more or less restrictive than LDP 
> license? The LDP license mentions that it has cannot be more restrictive.

The MIT / X Consortium licence is an "academic"-type simple permissive
licence, similar to BSD.

> For changing the license, can I just add the new license and remove the 
> old one? 

Sure; it's your text.

> Do I have to mention that it was licensed under a different one 
> earlier?

No -- but, if your document includes a revision history, it might be
worth mentioning.

> I am a bit new to this licensing stuff. Please point me to any relevant 
> documents, if there are any.

OK.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html
http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm

Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.####

> I sent this e-mail to Guylhem Aznar ####@####.#### as 
> instructed in the LDP license, but it seems the e-mail is invalid. 
> Please forward it to the appropriate person.

I'm probably not "the appropriate person" in that I don't speak for LDP,
but I do know a bit about licensing.

[your Ncurses Programming HOWTO:]

>     I am not sure what I should do in this situation. Can I just
> re-license my document under MIT-style license?

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.

Thanks, Rick. Eric Raymond's document was quite informative.

--pradeep

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.####
> 
> 
>>I am the sole author. Is MIT license more or less restrictive than LDP 
>>license? The LDP license mentions that it has cannot be more restrictive.
> 
> 
> The MIT / X Consortium licence is an "academic"-type simple permissive
> licence, similar to BSD.
> 
> 
>>For changing the license, can I just add the new license and remove the 
>>old one? 
> 
> 
> Sure; it's your text.
> 
> 
>>Do I have to mention that it was licensed under a different one 
>>earlier?
> 
> 
> No -- but, if your document includes a revision history, it might be
> worth mentioning.
> 
> 
>>I am a bit new to this licensing stuff. Please point me to any relevant 
>>documents, if there are any.
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html
> http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
> 
> 
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/

Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.####

> Thanks, Rick. Eric Raymond's document was quite informative.

You're very welcome.  You should also be grateful to co-author Cathy
Raymond, who is a very sharp attorney dealing in copyright law.

I checked a few other links as well (thanks to google). I found your 
proposed changes to LDP. I was thinking of changing my license to GNU 
FDL, but the following documents

http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

seem to suggest otherwise. I have finally decided to just use the same 
license ncurses (MIT-style license) uses.

Any comments?

--pradeep

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.####
> 
> 
>>Thanks, Rick. Eric Raymond's document was quite informative.
> 
> 
> You're very welcome.  You should also be grateful to co-author Cathy
> Raymond, who is a very sharp attorney dealing in copyright law.
> 
> 
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/

Quoting Pradeep Padala ####@####.####

> I have finally decided to just use the same license ncurses (MIT-style
> license) uses.
> 
> Any comments?

It's a simple permissive licence.  If that's what you want, good.  ;->
(It's generally pointless to argue with someone's choice of licence,
even when I have an opinion.)

>>I have finally decided to just use the same license ncurses (MIT-style
>>license) uses.
>>
>>Any comments?
> 
> 
> It's a simple permissive licence.  If that's what you want, good.  ;->
> (It's generally pointless to argue with someone's choice of licence,
> even when I have an opinion.)

:-) To brew up some discussion, what license would you use for 
documentation you write for an open source project?

--pradeep