xLFS Book Licenses

Joe Ciccone jciccone at gmail.com
Tue Aug 22 09:58:04 PDT 2006


Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> He and Ryan are proposing the Open Publication License,
> http://www.opencontent.org/openpub, for all the books.  I've looked at
> it and it seems to meet the standards of having a recognized license and
> protecting the books.  If it is the community's decision, I have no
> problem with using this in BLFS.  It is used by several organizations
> including:
>   
I honestly don't know one license from the other. But the OPL looks like
it would protect LFS from being published by a 3rd party. Which is
really the main thing in my eyes.
> In addition to the main license, I also feel that the books should dual
> license the code (scripts and config files) in the the books with a very
> open license such as the AFL currently in BLFS or a BSD type of license.
>  The reason is to basically leave the instructions unencumbered.  For
> instance, IMO, the output of jhalfs should not have the requirements of
> the OPL, but with only one license there would be unnecessary overhead
> if the instructions are extracted from the books.
>
> Ryan suggested the GPL for the code, but that has a lot of overhead that
> I don't feel is necessary.  For instance, there would be a need to put
> relatively long GPL statements in each file in the bootscripts and the
> need to include extra copyright files with the jhalfs output.
>   
Just one scenario I'm curious about. Say I have a distro based on xLFS
and I would like to give it away/sell it. How is that going to affect
what I'm able to do (give away/sell). Under the OPL it looks like that
wouldn't be possible to do either without the author(s) permission.
Would the second license on code (scripts and config files) change this
scenario?



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list