| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
This is the copyright notice for the GNU GRUB manualThis is the copyright notice for the GNU GRUB manualPosted Nov 20, 2003 1:52 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: This is the copyright notice for the GNU GRUB manual by vblum Parent article: Thomas Bushnell is no longer Hurd maintainer I'm not a lawyer, I don't know and I don't care. I do care that the documentation doesn't impose limitations in addition to those contained in the license for the software. I believe the documentation should be under a license at least as liberal as the software. Even the BSD license (without the advrertizing clause) or public domain would be fine (maybe with some corrections or clarifications) because the risk of misappropriation of the documentation is not as great as it is for the software. The software can break if you "rephrase" it, and it takes major efforts to make it work again. On the other hand, retelling the documentation would not break it, while being legal (provided you don't follow the original too closely). Thus the incentive to use the work of others in not as strong for the text as it is for the code. Besides, even non-free documentation for free software would help users of free software and promote it. But it should not be packaged with the software and limit the ways in which the software can be distributed.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||