Ticket #250 (new defect)
LGPL not a good license for documentation
| Reported by: | scon | Owned by: | scon |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | PL 2.0.2 |
| Component: | Documentation | Version: | 2.0.0 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| patch waiting for maintainer: | no |
Description
Hi All,
I have created a new tar ball for the R2 documentation. Please reference it at:
(http://download.opensaf.org/documentation/OpenSAF_R2_Documentation_091608_pdfs.tar.gz).
See below for a description of the changes that I have made.
I don't think that the LGPL [1] is the most appropriate license for the documentation. The "lesser" part of the LGPL is specifically intended to allow linking with non-free modules, this is obviously not applicable with documentation.
I believe the straight GNU GPL[2] version 2.0 would be a much more appropriate license for this documentation. Baring the use of the GPL I would chose the FreeBSD Documentation License[3], or something similar.
I'm sure changes to licensing need to go through the OpenSAF board of directors. Any one else have thoughts on this?
Troy
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
[3] http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html
