xLFS Book Licenses
lfs at jg555.com
Wed Aug 23 21:23:49 PDT 2006
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> IMO, the requirements are:
>> 1. Only publish commercially with permission.
> This goes against the spirit of Free Software, IMO. I *do* understand
> the reasons for wanting to do so, but GPL and BSD packages have survived
> without such restrictions so far, why shouldn't LFS? Maybe books are
> different from software, but at the moment I'd be in agreement with Dan
> Nicholson; we should aim for as free a license as possible. The LFS
> project hasn't made much money at all from the sale of hard copy books,
> as far as I'm aware. There is no reason, therefore, to believe that
> someone else could make much money from it either. So, what do we
> lose? The ability to publish via TLDP for one.
Matt, let me throw this curve at you, who's been sending LFS to TLDP for
>> 2. Provide appropriate acknowledgment if the book or portions of the
>> book are used in other non-commercial works.
> Yep, that's a requirement of the CC license. Note that, although
> we've improved recently, we have historically had a pretty poor record
> on acknowledging our own contributors! We need to work out who our
> licensees have to acknowledge though, is it Gerard, each individual
> contributor, the LFS project itself? I'd imagine it'd be the
> copyright holder, which at the moment is Gerard.
This is a good point, in CLFS we added an updated acknowledgments page
for anyone who's contributed to the growth the book.
I see what we do as just a document, that's why Ryan and I suggest the
OPL. All the commands and scripts we use our pretty much public
knowledge, we just bundle it up for people to use in a nice package.
I've said this a few times, why license the commands and scripts with a
separate license, it's all part of the same document.
For ALFS, since we our only going to license the document, I think the
OPL covers the issue of the document itself, and it doesn't care how
it's used, as long as the document is in tact.
As far as the scripts and udev rules we have, I just see a very basic
license. Something like this what's on the next line. It needs to be
simple and open.Matt has pointed out, a lot of this stuff is borrowed
from other sources, and we need to make sure we give credit where it's
due and follow their licensing.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
FYI I'm in and out all this week, very busy project at work right now,
so forgive my delays on responding to issues or questions.
More information about the blfs-dev