Xfce documentation licenses

[James Tappin]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:08:44 -0800
"Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23 at cornell.edu> wrote:

> Jacqueline McNally wrote:
> 
> > Hello
> >
> > I am creating documentation and training material for Computer Angels 
> > (www.computerangels.org.au) and Xfce features largely :)
> >
> > What I need to know, is which license is applicable to the existing 
> > documentation:
> > http://www.loculus.nl/xfce/documentation/docs-4.2/
> >
> > As suggested, I have looked at the different components, but many of 
> > the manuals and the guide refer to several licenses (BSD, LGPL and 
> > GPL). Are all these licenses applicable to the documentation?
> >
> > I just thought that I would use similar licensing in the event that 
> > the documentation that I prepare may be of use to a wider audience.
> >
> > Please can you advise which license is applicable to the Xfce 
> > documentation.
> 
> 
> this is a good question.  i'm relatively sure that the docs aren't 
> licensed properly.  IMHO, they _should_ be licensed under somehing like 
> the GNU FDL[1], or maybe a creative commons license[2].  BSD/LGPL/GPL 
> just aren't really appropriate for docs (well, BSD could be i guess, but
> 
> not the others).  but since i've written only a small amount of the 
> documentation, it's up to the respective authors do decide what to do 
> for their docs.
> 
> anyway, for your stuff, i'd recommend the GNU FDL.

IIRC the GNU FDL is considered incompatible with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines, which causes problems for having the affected packages in the
main distribution.
See http://www.uk.debian.org/News/weekly/2004/38/

James

-- 
James Tappin,             O__      "I forget the punishment for using
james at tappin.me.uk       --  \/`    Microsoft --- Something lingering
http://www.tappin.me.uk/            with data loss in it I fancy"