Re: Proposal: License Change for Manual And Standardization of Licenses for Official Docs

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On 10/21/07, Pongracz Istvan <..hidden..> wrote:
> 2007. 10. 21, vasárnap keltezéssel 09.24-kor Chris Travers ezt írta:
> > Does this help?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> One question:
> Does this effect to the translation?

I think we should include whoever is maintaining the document in the
copyright notice.  I think that we should have all documentation on
one license if possible.   Obviously  you have every right to
translate the manual and claim the translation as your own under
either license.  The question is what we can distribute as official
documentation :-).

> In some places I added some additional notes...

Not a problem there.  However, if you could summarize these, we may
want to try to ensure that issues are clarified in the main manual as
well.


> And who will check it? :)
>
> By the way, what about using a creative commons license?

It took me a long time to find the license text.  I would be OK with
the idea of a CC license but there are two concenrs I have (neither of
which are blocking).  If the general concensus was to go with such a
license, I would not object.

The concerns are:
1)  The license text is unnecessary long for their simplest licenses.
I believe this is because they are trying to create reusable
components and therefore feel compelled to copy a portion of the US
Copyright Act into the license almost verbatim.

2)  More troubling, the license would be attached separately to the
work via publication of a URL.  In the event that someone published in
print, learning what license rights were allowed would require an
internet connection.

So I think that the FreeBSD Documentation License represents a better
base for a documentation license.  Basically it is functionally
equivalent to the attribution-only CC license, but is simpler and is
distributed inline in the documentation.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers