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) and CC SA 3 should be okay with Debian, though. (I'm not a DD and am not speaking for the project.)
Dovecot is MIT & LGPL, so why not choose one of those? 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.
If you're not worried about that, really a Public Domain declaration should work. Here's what Wikipedia uses: This [content] has been released into the public domain by its author, [NAME]. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: [NAME] grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
Richard