Hi,
I'm reviewing the license of the Nettle manual, which has been somewhat unclear (in some places it was stated that the manual was GPL:ed, while copyright notices in the manual said something differently or were simply missing).
This is related to Pike, because some paragraphs of the Nettle manual are copied to pike's module reference doc, e.g., http://pike.ida.liu.se/generated/manual/modref/ex/predef_3A_3A/Crypto/AES.ht.... The corresponding Pike source file (http://pike.ida.liu.se/development/cvs/view.xml?module=Pike&file=7.8/lib...), but I guess the intention is that it's licensed under the usual GPL/LGPL/MPL dual (or "threeal") license as the rest of Pike.
I'd like to make clear that such copying and remixing is allowed, question is how. I could use the GNU FDL (no invariant sections), and try to come up with an exception covering remixing of the manual into documentation for crypto modules that reuse nettle code and/or interfacecs. Or I could make the entire manual public domain. Or in between, I could try to use something along the lines of CC-attribution or CC-sharealike.
If possible, I'd prefer to retain some kind of copyleft, i.e, it should not be allowed to remix the manual and then require a per-copy licensing fee for the result, or apply drm-madness, and things like that.
Suggestions?
PS. Whatever I decide for the main text, I'm going to add some disclaimer saying that code examples are in the public domain.
PPS. At least I think the copying is from the Nettle manual to Pike module documentation. If anybody thinks the copying is in the other direction, please correct me.
i think for most practical purposes documentation should have the same license as the code, because when code is changed, documentation may need to be changed accordingly.
don't use the fdl, as it will cause difficulties to include the manual in debian.
since some source files have different licenses, perhaps the manual sections related to those files could have the same license (not sure if that is practical) otherwise the lgpl may be sufficient (since linking does not really apply, there is no difference between the two i think)
the main aim should be to allow people who take bits of nettle can take the related documentation as well (like in pikes example) without causing a licening confusion in the resulting combination.
greetings, martin.
If possible, I'd prefer to retain some kind of copyleft, i.e, it should not be allowed to remix the manual and then require a per-copy licensing fee for the result, or apply drm-madness, and things like that.
Hm. Do you really feel that the API documentation has such intrisic value that this would be a realistic "threat"? I fail to see a scenario where such a clause would benefit either you or humanity at large...
If it was only an API reference, I might not hesitate to make it all public domain, since I don't believe in copyright on interfaces.
But the Nettle manual contains some more stuff than a plain API reference (even if it's the latter that is most relevant for Pike documentation). E.g., the discussion of randomness for cryptogaphic applications, http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Randomness, would make some sense for copying into a cryptography textbook or tutorial. Whether or not real problems with proprietary books or drm are *likely*, is a different matter.
After consulting with FSF people (it's possible that Nettle will become a GNU package), I've more or less decided to make the entire manual public domain. It seems very difficult to combine a copyleft license such as the fdl (as long as there are no "invariant sections", I don't think the fdl causes any problems with debian) with permission to copy it into code and documentation under various other copyleft licenses as, e.g., in Pike (LGPL/MPL).
Tentative copyright notice:
This manual is placed in the public domain. You may freely copy it, in whole or in part, with or without modification. Attribution is appreciated, but not required.
pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se
-
Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum -
Martin Bähr -
Niels M�ller () ＠ Pike (-) developers forum