Subject: Re: For Approval: MN Open Documentation License 1.0
From: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@tlen.pl>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:10:58 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 16 of December 2004 21:00, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Now the FSF could sue you for copyright infringement on their licence
> texts... they actually forbid you to take the text and modify it.
>
> Except of course you'd got the permission.

I did of course. BTW. I remember reading (probably while sleeping ;) ) 
somwehere that they are OK unless you use different preamble.

>>     If  your document  contains nontrivial  examples of  program  code,
>> we
> we? Pluralis Maiestatis? ;)

We, the open source community, but I did change it anyway.

> Now, seriously: what is wrong with using BSD, LGPL or GPL for
> documentation as well?

* BSD - too loose
* LGPL - the language of the license is specific for the libraries which 
could lead to ambigious interpretations.
* GPL - it isn't clear whether you can publish a document under GPL and 
other license together; and the copyright holder can release only the 
opaque version without the transparent (since (s)he does not have to 
comply with the license).

I did search for a license for my documentation but they all seemd to lack 
something. All things which I'd like the license to have are present in 
one of the already approved license but there is no (I didn't find any) 
license with all of them.

> Especially when parts of it are auto- 
> generated from the code, such as it's the case with GNU lib-
> iberty, this is pretty much a "must".

No, it isn't. The copyright holder can write that (s)he allows the 
documentation generated from the source code to be licensed under 
different license.

> And the FSF just started the FDL to further restrict what the
> redistributors can do with their manuals, in order to be able
> to further publish their political (the GNU manifesto) and
> "ethical" (must not obstruct) goals - ironically, their use of
> invariant sections and cover texts is against the ethics that
> everything should be free as in GNU, i.e. freely modifiable as
> well.

That's why I'm changing the license.

- -- 
Best regards,                                          _     _
.o. | Liege of Serenly Enlightened Majesty           o' \,=./ `o
..o | of Computer Science,  Michal "MINA" Nazarewicz    (o o)
ooo +--<mina86@tlen.pl>--<jid:mina86@jabber.org>----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFBwvcIUyzLALfG3x4RApVxAJjaO42LesSTwW95t1DSWfeZHRXkAKCsADDF
PFb6VyKO9jd52kHNV5I7Aw==
=D+gr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----