The FreeBSD documentation license (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/
freebsd-doc-license.html) is fairly similar to the modified BSD
license. It is, however, missing the third clause (The name of the
author may not be used to endorse ... without specific prior
written permission.) which I think would be a good idea to have.
Also, the distinction between source and compiled forms is probably
unnecessary.
I think the differentiation between source and compiled is necessary,
so that the copyright notice gets added to printed work (otherwise
the copyright doesn't travel with, say a PDF or a book). So maybe
something like this:
========================================
Copyright 2004-2007 The Etoile Project. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source (<insert whatever source form is
used>) and 'compiled' forms (SGML, HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF and so
forth) with or without modification, are permitted provided that the
following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code (<insert whatever source form is
used>) must retain the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer as the first lines of this
file unmodified.
2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs,
converted to PDF, PostScript, RTF and other formats) must reproduce
the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with
the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the Etoile Project nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this documentation without specific prior written permission.
THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE ETOILE PROJECT "AS IS" AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE ETOILE PROJECT BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE
OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
========================================
I think the 3rd clause may not be a good idea (which is why the
FreeBSD folks pulled it out), as people may want to publish the
documentation in dead-tree form, and they would have to ask us if
they can put 'Etoile Project' on the 'Etoile Project
Documentation'... I'm not sure what else they would call it and it
could be a logistic hassle if they do need to get in contact with us.
Thoughts?
J.
_______________________________________________
Etoile-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
