I'm contacting the list to inquire regarding the acceptability
of the following proposed documentation license, as I'd like to
ensure that it will become be an impediment to having
documentation licensed under it added to Debian in the future.
Redistribution and use in ‘source’ [...] and ‘compiled’ forms [...] in whole or in
part, for any purpose, including commercial applications, with or without modification, in any medium, is hereby permitted, without fee or royalty, provided
that the following conditions are met:
The license looks to me like it is saying that anyone distributing the
work does not have to pay a fee to the original author. It does not
prohibit the distributor from imposing fees on end recipients.
Otherwise, the blurb about 'commercial applications' would be
contradictory.
Greetings,
I'm contacting the list to inquire regarding the acceptability
of the following proposed documentation license, as I'd like to
ensure that it will become be an impediment to having
documentation licensed under it added to Debian in the future.
Thank you,
Otherwise, if you are writing general documentation about many
different programs/libraries or about other topics (science, art, ...),
a simple permissive license that I would recommend is the [Expat]
license or the [zlib] license.
[Expat]: <http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
[zlib]: <https://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html>
5. As state above, there is concern at the phrasing of "the Software" as
used in these licenses (such as zlib), when applied strictly to documentation. We do not want misunderstandings or confusion that the documentation is the simulator software, bundled utilities that the documentation describes but are differently licensed, etc. I do
understand there are subtleties as to exactly what is documentation and
what is not, and the licenses such as zlib further exacerbate this issue
by making an implied distinction between the documentation and the
software, for example: "Permission is granted to anyone to use this
software ..." and later "an acknowledgment in the product documentation
would be appreciated". This is especially confusing when the
documentation IS 'the software', and provides room for argument over the resulting compiled documentation output (PDF, etc.).
6. Originally, the GFDL was discussed, but it is my understanding the the GFDL is still controversial within Debian, and I would like to avoid the situation where an optional dps8m-docs package would not be eligible for inclusion, because having the simulator available in Debian is a personal goal. There are also other problems with the GFDL regarding DRM distribution, etc.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:43:34PM -0400, Jeffrey H. Johnson wrote:[...]
5. As state above, there is concern at the phrasing of "the Software" as used in these licenses (such as zlib), when applied strictly to documentation. We do not want misunderstandings or confusion that the documentation is the simulator software, bundled utilities that the documentation describes but are differently licensed, etc. I do
understand there are subtleties as to exactly what is documentation and what is not, and the licenses such as zlib further exacerbate this issue
by making an implied distinction between the documentation and the software, for example: "Permission is granted to anyone to use this software ..." and later "an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated". This is especially confusing when the
documentation IS 'the software', and provides room for argument over the resulting compiled documentation output (PDF, etc.).
Regarding Documentation and Software.
I've put some FreeCAD files under the GPL and had the same concern that some work / 3d model might not be covered. I've solved this for me by writing "For
the avoidance of doubt, "program" can be replaced with "work" in the license grant above." below the GPL boilerplate in the README. Dont know if that
is legally watertight, but in conveys what I want to archieve.
6. Originally, the GFDL was discussed, but it is my understanding the the GFDL is still controversial within Debian, and I would like to avoid the situation where an optional dps8m-docs package would not be eligible for inclusion, because having the simulator available in Debian is a personal goal. There are also other problems with the GFDL regarding DRM distribution, etc.
nope, GFDL and DFSG is settled. https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Exception
As long as there are no invariant sections GFDL is acceptable.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 14:38:47 |
Calls: | 6,645 |
Files: | 12,190 |
Messages: | 5,326,935 |