[Pkg-firebird-general] Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Manuals gbak, gfix and gsec

[Remco Seesink]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Multipart=_Tue__13_Jul_2004_11_52_08_+0200_ai4KRFN2uFz3O/lM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

For people on the pkg-firebird-general list this thread gives some context:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00408.html

Looks like licening gets quite complicated. How about dual licening
the manuals under the GPL and the IDPL?

We may have to relicense everything depending on the outcome of the
discussion about the Mozilla Public License. This could mean trouble
for the firebird packages :(

If we just want to get it over with we could also try a BSD style
license for the manuals because it is compatible with about everything.

See also below.

Stefan, thanks for your patience!

Cheers,
Remco.

P.S. 

In the mean time I got this e-mail from stefan:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Remco,

Creative Commons would have been my next suggestion. So let's see what
Debian Legal will suggest. I'm open on this issue. I'm located in
Germany so US laws don't apply here (we don't have copyrights like in
the USA). I know that there are adaptions of Creative Commons for
Germany so that would be my favorite at this time.

It's so sad that we have to discuss legal issues for a handful of text
documents that I want to give away for free -- in return to all I get
from the Internet from day to day ... :-(


Best Regards

Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:06:50 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>
To: Remco Seesink <raseesink@hotpop.com>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Manuals gbak, gfix and gsec


Remco Seesink wrote:
> I want to advise a license for documentation, and know
> there are problems with the GFDL. So I thought of the
> Creative Commons Attribution license but that appears
> to have problems too.
> 
> What documentation license can I advise?
> 
> If more context needed, see below.

> From: Remco Seesink <r.a.seesink@alumnus.utwente.nl>
> Date: 12.07.2004 10:14
> To: Stefan Heymann <stefan@destructor.de>
> Subject: Manuals gbak, gfix and gsec
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Great!
> How about using the "Initial Developer's PUBLIC LICENSE" Version 1.0 for them?
> This license is used by firebird developers to license new code.
> 
> Here is the (long) text:
> http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?a=ibphoenix&page=ibp_idpl
> 
> Your manuals might even make it back into the main firebird tree.

I believe you made exactly the right recommendation: license the
documentation under the same license as the work it documents.  This
makes it far easier to use code samples in the document or integrate
documentation with the code.

See also answer 8 in the DFSG FAQ
(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), and Nathaniel Nerode's
"Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL"
(http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html).

That said, the DFSG-freeness of the Mozilla Public License, which the
license you suggested is based on, is currently under debate, and
leaning towards saying that the license is non-free.  Because of that, I
would suggest licensing the manual under the GNU GPL, either instead of
or in addition to the license used for the Firebird database.

- Josh Triplett


--Multipart=_Tue__13_Jul_2004_11_52_08_+0200_ai4KRFN2uFz3O/lM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
 name="signature.asc"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="signature.asc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcgdjEuMi40IChHTlUv
TGludXgpCkNvbW1lbnQ6IFVzaW5nIEdudVBHIHdpdGggRGViaWFuIC0gaHR0cDovL2VuaWdtYWls
Lm1vemRldi5vcmcKCmlEOERCUUZBOHpXMkdKdVpSdEQrZXZzUkFrSW9BSjRsNVE1d1pqb0x1dWUw
azZiajhPL3NtT1VUb1FDZlFheXcKR0FpSTJQSWdBSGFIS0JLOHpaemwzR3c9Cj04cGYwCi0tLS0t
RU5EIFBHUCBTSUdOQVRVUkUtLS0tLQoK

--Multipart=_Tue__13_Jul_2004_11_52_08_+0200_ai4KRFN2uFz3O/lM--