Re: gtk-doc documentation

Hash: SHA1

Jochen Voss <voss seehuhn de> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:13:10PM +0100, Stefan Kost wrote:
>> The documents is under GFDL 1.1.  I don't know what others think
>> about this licence. Which licence would be more appropriate?
> For me it would be crucial that I could cut and paste things
> from the documentation into my GPLed programs.  Otherwise example
> code in the documentation is not very useful.

That's true.  You could add a disclaimer that examples are public
domain, for example.  This also runs the other way: what happens when
you want to paste code/strings /into/ the manual from the source?

Another problem is what happens if someone becomes uncontactable,
dies, etc..  In this case you can't ask them to relicence their work,
and so you are stuck.  For GNU projects, which use the licence
heavily, this isn't an issue due to their only having a single
copyright holder (the FSF).  For projects with multiple copyright
holders, this is an issue.

You might find this thread informative:

> This could, for example, be achieved by putting the documentation
> itself under the GPL.

That is (IMHO) the best approach, or alternatively dual licensing the
documentation under both licences.  Either way will avoid both
relicensing issues and the GFDL issues.


- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?
                Debian GNU/Linux
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]