On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 16:01 -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:52 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-12-16 22:43:18 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
a) GNU Free Documentation License
b) Creative Commons (Attribution-Share Alike?)
It could also be dual-licensed to both to maximize the distribution possibilities.
CC Share Alike 3
GFDL has some sucking part about the license when using parts of the documentation.
I'm not sure if this would matter or not, but... Debian has previously said that the CC licenses are not DFSG-free. From what I can see, no opinion has been released on the version 3 licenses. See: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian
A dual-license of GFDL (without invariant sections)
Was there something optional, or do you mean I should modify it myself?.. I remember GFDL wasn't Debian-compatible either earlier.
Dovecot is MIT & LGPL, so why not choose one of those?
I thought those wouldn't apply well to documentation. Although I suppose MIT could work.
The only down-side of an MIT license is that someone could take the work and put it into a non-free product. With documentation, the biggest potential problem would be someone making a Dovecot book.
Isn't it already possible with GFDL/CC? Although I guess it could require the book to be under the same license as well.
If you're not worried about that, really a Public Domain declaration should work.
Somehow I don't feel good about giving away my copyrights, even if I would never do anything useful with them.