[tex-live] Licences for non-software documents
karl at freefriends.org
Tue Jan 9 00:01:22 CET 2007
Sorry for overlap with Frank's reply, I wrote it before I saw it ...
whether the TeXlive assemblers thinks it should be included is another
I am pretty "inclusive" about such decisions :). I'm sure I would
but I don't want it to be excluded because of a licence problem.
The main thing is that the source is needed. Is that a problem for you?
It doesn't matter how "pretty" it is. I often recommend to people to
put their source files in a .zip bundle, which I then include that way
From the "free" licences I have looked at the Open Publication
License with options A and B fits my wishes (OPL is at
OPL is free if you don't exercise the options in section VI (says
http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#RealOPL), so it would be ok in
that case. But I don't recommend it, simply because there is nothing
else on CTAN or TL which uses that license. (Aside: I've suggested it
be removed from the license list dropdown on CTAN, since that highlights
Given source availability, which for a document should not pose any
particular problem, there is no problem with using the GPL, LPPL, or any
other mostly-used-for-software license.
The most widely used pure documentation license I know of is the GFDL(*)
(used by wikipedia et al., http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), but I
don't see a reason to go that route here. (You'd have to include the
license itself in the document.)
Happy to discuss further if you want.
(*) To anyone who might be tempted to reply with a tirade about the
GFDL: yes, I know very well that the GFDL with invariant sections is
considered nonfree by Debian, etc. Let's not go there, pleeeeease.
More information about the tex-live