[Top] [All Lists]

Re: system call documentation [license question]

To: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: system call documentation [license question]
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:50:17 +0100
Cc: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Andries.Brouwer@xxxxxx, kaos@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0302021633280.1441-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1044199525.1372.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0302021633280.1441-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
[l-k dropped from cc because there are already too many off-topic threads

> The man pages are intended to be GPL licensed, while libacl (and libattr)
> was originally intended to be under LGPL. I have been quite lazy on

IMHO GPL or LGPL doesn't make much sense for documentation. For example
if someone printed them out and sold them as book would you really want to force
them to include a CD with the roff format ("prefered format for modification")?

When I wrote man pages I put them onto the same license as most of the
other man pages are, which roughly says "do what you want, but add a changelog
for changes and don't remove my name"

Another alternative would be the new FDL from the FSF
but it seems to be a bit too complicated for me.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>