xLFS Book Licenses

Currently, LFS ticket 1765,
http
://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1765, suggests
that LFS use
the licenses that are currently in the BLFS book.  Jim,
Ryan, and I have
had some off-line conversations about this and feel it is
time to open
up this discussion to the community.

Currently, LFS, HLFS, and Cross-LFS have the same license. 
This license
is "home grown" and has not been vetted by
anyone knowledgeable in the
law.  BLFS went to a dual license format some time ago using
a Creative
Commons License,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/vie
w/cvs/appendices/creat-comm.html,
for the book while simultaneously providing a Academic Free
License,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/vi
ew/cvs/appendices/ac-free-lic.html,
for the code.

Jim has pointed out that there are problems with the CC:

http://peopl
e.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
h
ttp://www.satn.org/archive/2003_04_27_archive.html
http://zesty.ca/cc.html

He and Ryan are proposing the Open Publication License,
http://www.opencon
tent.org/openpub, for all the books.  I've looked at
it and it seems to meet the standards of having a recognized
license and
protecting the books.  If it is the community's decision, I
have no
problem with using this in BLFS.  It is used by several
organizations
including:

Linux Gazzette http://linuxgaze
tte.net/copying.html
Debian http://www.debian.org/opl
FedoraMobile http
://fedoramobile.org/open-publication-license
Gimp Savvy Book - h
ttp://slashdot.org/articles/00/03/12/2358211.shtml
LinuxLab - http://linuxlab.dk/lic
ense/opl
O'Reilly

In addition to the main license, I also feel that the books
should dual
license the code (scripts and config files) in the the books
with a very
open license such as the AFL currently in BLFS or a BSD type
of license.
 The reason is to basically leave the instructions
unencumbered.  For
instance, IMO, the output of jhalfs should not have the
requirements of
the OPL, but with only one license there would be
unnecessary overhead
if the instructions are extracted from the books.

Ryan suggested the GPL for the code, but that has a lot of
overhead that
I don't feel is necessary.  For instance, there would be a
need to put
relatively long GPL statements in each file in the
bootscripts and the
need to include extra copyright files with the jhalfs
output.

A general list of Open Source licenses can be found at
http://www.openso
urce.org/licenses/


What is the community opinion?

  -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

El Martes, 22 de Agosto de 2006 06:13, Bruce Dubbs escribió:

> He and Ryan are proposing the Open Publication License,
> http://www.opencon
tent.org/openpub, for all the books.  I've looked at
> it and it seems to meet the standards of having a
recognized license and
> protecting the books.  If it is the community's
decision, I have no
> problem with using this in BLFS.  

OPL looks fine to me for the textual part of the books.

But as you said below, the code (both the code embedded into
the books, the 
XSL code, extra scripts inside the SVN trees used to process
the book 
sources, bootscripts, Udev rules, etc) should use a
different license. IMHO a 
BSD-based one could be the best.

About jhalfs, it uses GPL from the beginning and I would to
change it to the 
same decided for book's code, If that can be done and
don't will cause 
conflicts with the included menu and lxdialog files that are
under GPL.

-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:       http://www.linuxfroms
cratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomp
oslinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
TLDP-ES:                           http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

On 8/21/06, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbsgmail.com> wrote:
>
> Currently, LFS, HLFS, and Cross-LFS have the same
license.  This license
> is "home grown" and has not been vetted by
anyone knowledgeable in the
> law.  BLFS went to a dual license format some time ago
using a Creative
> Commons License,
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/vie
w/cvs/appendices/creat-comm.html,
> for the book while simultaneously providing a Academic
Free License,
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/vi
ew/cvs/appendices/ac-free-lic.html,
> for the code.
>
> Jim has pointed out that there are problems with the
CC:
>
> http://peopl
e.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
> h
ttp://www.satn.org/archive/2003_04_27_archive.html
> http://zesty.ca/cc.html
>
> He and Ryan are proposing the Open Publication License,
> http://www.opencon
tent.org/openpub, for all the books.  I've looked at
> it and it seems to meet the standards of having a
recognized license and
> protecting the books.  If it is the community's
decision, I have no
> problem with using this in BLFS.  It is used by several
organizations
> including:

I'm pretty indifferent, so long as the license is generally
very open.
I don't want to see any odd restrictions on how to use the
book. But I
do agree with Bruce that using a well documented license is
preferred
to "License From Scratch." It would be great to
get the book back on
TLDP, though.

> In addition to the main license, I also feel that the
books should dual
> license the code (scripts and config files) in the the
books with a very
> open license such as the AFL currently in BLFS or a BSD
type of license.
>  The reason is to basically leave the instructions
unencumbered.  For
> instance, IMO, the output of jhalfs should not have the
requirements of
> the OPL, but with only one license there would be
unnecessary overhead
> if the instructions are extracted from the books.
>
> Ryan suggested the GPL for the code, but that has a lot
of overhead that
> I don't feel is necessary.  For instance, there would
be a need to put
> relatively long GPL statements in each file in the
bootscripts and the
> need to include extra copyright files with the jhalfs
output.
>
> A general list of Open Source licenses can be found at
> http://www.openso
urce.org/licenses/

Who is this mythical Ryan character? 

Same thoughts here. I like the separate license for the code
and would
like it to be very open. But, I trust you guys to make a
good decision
about a specific license. I really have very little
knowledge of
licenses, so I couldn't give a good justification of one
license vs.
another.

--
Dan
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page