Copyright of the desktop configuration specification (careful, here be dragons)
lauri at kde.org
Tue Oct 4 20:41:32 EEST 2005
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 19.03, C. Gatzemeier wrote:
> Hi all,
> IANAL, I understand the GFDL has controversal issues
> but also see some uses for carefuly applied invariant sections that should
> not prevent forking, like the list of conributors, or see below.
This license is not nearly so controversial as it seems. While the suggested
text for the license notice includes mention of invariant sections and
front/back cover texts (and those are in fact not what most people think they
are in any case), it is only an example.
If you want to use the GFDL (and it's a good license, it takes care of the
special needs of writers quite nicely) then you might simply use a version of
the license notice that is unequivocal:
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under
the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later
version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of
the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation
This is the version we have been happily using for KDE docs for 5 odd years
now, and other than the occasional debian user (note, never developer,
lawyer, or other informed party) who writes to me in a snit, is easily
mollified by the explanation that the objectionable bits are outlawed from
inclusion by the very license notice in use.
Drop the "or any later" if you want, it is optional. It's also usually
acceptable to state that a copy of the license is provided with the source
package, if you don't want to included it in the doc, which may be the case
for a shorter one.
KDE Documentation: http://docs.kde.org
KDE on FreeBSD: http://freebsd.kde.org
More information about the xdg