Licensing and copyrighting the docs

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Sat Feb 5 02:34:10 PST 2005


The copyright and license on the current docs were added without any 
discussion on this mailing list, for which I apologise.  However, I did 
discuss general issues in IRC with both Jeremy H. and Jamie Bennett. 
Again, I realise that this list should be the primary source of 
discussion/decision making but I wanted to get started (and finished!) 

So, here's my reasons for doing what I did:

1) Copyright held by Jeremy H. - a copyright must be held by a legally 
recognised entity, that is a company, a non-profit organisation or an 
individual.  The reason being, that if someone infringes on a copyright 
then the plaintiff has to be legally recognised to enforce their rights. 
  IANAL so this may be inaccurate/incomplete, but it is what I based the 
copyright decision on last night.  I realise that James Robertson 
contributed the majority of the text I committed, and didn't mean to 
inadequately attribute the text.  Suggestions on how we can best credit 
the "Various Authors" are most welcome.

2) Use of "Creative Commons" License.  Again, I asked for opinions on 
IRC and CC was mentioned.  It happens to be my preferred license for 
textual works too, but that's beside the point.  The only other purely 
documentation license I know of is the GNU Free Documentation License 
(GFDL), but I didn't want our docs under that due to the reasons 
outlined in  Again, if 
a change in licensing terms are required it should be easy enough to 
change as Jeremy H. is the sole copyright holder ATM :)



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list