Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:37:12 +0200 From: Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@bsd.hu> To: "Lorenzo E. Danielsson" <danielsson.lorenzo@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Modified" FreeBSD Documentation License? Message-ID: <20080727163712.GA2214@baranyfelhocske.buza.adamsfamily.xx> In-Reply-To: <1217123408.20577.27.camel@etna.vulcan.net> References: <1217123408.20577.27.camel@etna.vulcan.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Lorenzo, It seems no one has yet answered to you, so I will try to... but note that I am not a representative of the FreeBSD Documentation Project in any form, these are just my thoughts. One thing in advance: I do not think there is such a thing called "FreeBSD Documentation License". It is still the BSD (software) license that we all know and like, only it says "source form" of documents instead of source code, and "compiled forms" instead of compiled software. So really, it was just minimally changed to accomodate the documentation project. (it is not like the case of GPL vs. GFDL, the GFDL is not just a minimally changed GPL, it was written specifically for documentation from the start) On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 01:50:08AM +0000, Lorenzo E. Danielsson wrote: > > 1. If I modify the license text to read for instance "Latex" instead of > DocBook SGML, is it valid to still call the license FreeBSD > Documentation License, or do I need to avoid that name? Well, as said above, there is no "FreeBSD Documentation License" anyway, but I think that if you change it, it is no longer the original, so you need to rename it. Note also Point 1 of the license, this prohibits changes to that text without permission, so if you change it, it will become a new license. (but that is all right, you are free to create a new license with mostly the same terms as the ones used for the FreeBSD docs.) > 2. Regarding the ODF documents: is it valid to consider documents > written in a tool like OpenOffice.org a "source" format? Well, they are in source and presentation format at the same time, because people can use them either way. But I would not call eg and ODF document a "compiled" format, because that just does not fit. For latex, there is no such a problem obviously. > 3. Suppose we go one step further and change the copyright notice to > state the author's name instead of "FreeBSD Project" as well as ".. > PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT" to .. PROVIDED BY > <AUTHOR>", is it still valid to call the license "FreeBSD Documentation > License"? Well, you would need to do that anyway, since it is not the FreeBSD Project that provides your files, but your group. So it is necessary to do that change. As for the naming, see above. > I guess what I'm trying to find out is if the documentation license is > "re-usable" in the same way that the BSD license is usable outside of > the BSD Project itself. Does this make sense? I have zero legal > background. IMHO, yes. But for software, you would also include your copyright instead of the Project's. > If this is totally off-topic, could somebody point me to where I can get > more information? I'm not currently on the list, so could I also be CCed > on any reply? I hope this helps as a start, and of course stay tuned for any other answers. :-) Best of luck with your project! P.S. If you haven't already, you might want also check out the Creative Commons licenses, they fit documentation more naturally than adapted software licenses. Also, it is fairly easy to create a CC license for your project, also for non-lawyers. See http://creativecommons.org/license/ for more information. -- Regards: Szilveszter ADAM Budapest Hungary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080727163712.GA2214>