On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:06:28PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >Debian has declared it a non-free license:
> Quoting from Debian's draft position paper on the FDL: "...we cannot
> accept works licensed under the GNU FDL into our distribution."
> That meets with my second criterion, so the FDL is out.
> Debian themselves use the Open Publication License for their web site
> text. I've just skimmed it, and it seems acceptable to me.
> I see no objection from Debian about the Creative Commons licenses.
I'll have to give these licenses a more thorough read. You raise some
Sounds like GNU FDL is just a bad apple in the bunch.
Personally, I'd prefer the comments stay under the same license as the code.
That keeps the code's license intact. Being able to say "the code is under
the LGPL" makes the mysql++ legal world a known, comforting place. :-)
I wouldn't mind if there was some way to dual-license the resulting
refman, but that's probably far-fetched, and I prefer keeping the code
as uncomplicated as possible with regard to license.
For the user manual, though, you make a persuasive argument, and I don't
mind a change for that. If I have more opinions on specific doc licenses,
I'll post them separately.
Thanks for the reponse,