Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:07:12 -0700 From: "Murray Stokely" <murray@stokely.org> To: danielsson.lorenzo@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, Nik Clayton <nik@ngo.org.uk> Subject: Re: "Modified" FreeBSD Documentation License? Message-ID: <2a7894eb0807271207g196ad89bt4a41b9613eec5280@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1217123408.20577.27.camel@etna.vulcan.net> References: <1217123408.20577.27.camel@etna.vulcan.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Lorenzo E. Danielsson
<danielsson.lorenzo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. If I modify the license text to read for instance "Latex" instead of
> DocBook SGML, is it valid to still call the license FreeBSD
> Documentation License, or do I need to avoid that name?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that will be fine. CCing Nik Clayton
who setup a lot of our earlier infrastructure for stuff like this.
> 2. Regarding the ODF documents: is it valid to consider documents
> written in a tool like OpenOffice.org a "source" format?
Yea if one can edit that and produce output formats then it is a source format.
> 3. Suppose we go one step further and change the copyright notice to
> state the author's name instead of "FreeBSD Project" as well as "..
> PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT" to .. PROVIDED BY
> <AUTHOR>", is it still valid to call the license "FreeBSD Documentation
> License"?
Where are you going to name the license this? You might just say "All
of our work is licensed under a modified FreeBSD Documentation
License. See the header to individual files for the license terms."
> I guess what I'm trying to find out is if the documentation license is
> "re-usable" in the same way that the BSD license is usable outside of
> the BSD Project itself. Does this make sense? I have zero legal
> background.
I would think that would be fine.
- Murray
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a7894eb0807271207g196ad89bt4a41b9613eec5280>