[scribus] the docs license

[Gregory Pittman]

On 04/13/2012 03:42 PM, Craig Bradney wrote:
> On 4/13/12 11:00 AM, Meho R. wrote:
>> On Friday 13 April 2012 08:34:08 Peter Linnell wrote:
>>>
>>> As the original doc writer and selector for the docs license, I did a
>>> careful survey of available licenses.
>>>
>>> CC did not exist at the time and none of them still do not reflect my
>>> exact intent with the license.
>>>
>>> I chose OPL, as it did two things:
>>>
>>> Permitted free distribution and alteration.
>>>
>>> Prevented a commercial interest from benefiting from our benevolent
>>> efforts aka reprinting commercially our docs without permission. My
>>> desire was that any documentation commercially or otherwise would
>>> benefit the project.
>>>
>>> That it is not free enough for Debian legal folks is their issue, not
>>> mine. Docs are not code and should not be licensed under the same kind
>>> of copyright/license.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> Actually, if there was an issue, it would be yours, Peter, not Debian's :-) They have strict rules which apply to every piece of software/doc and if you want your app/doc included, you must comply to their rules, not they to yours. If you'd rather not having your app/doc provided by default in one of the most important Linux distros, it is your choice and your problem.
>
> Sounds fine to me - we don't need to please Debian or any other distro. (despite malex's wonderful
> efforts over the years).
>
I agree Craig. We have every right to put out the docs to suit our needs 
and desires, not someone else's. There are some things we can do to 
improve access to the docs in spite of barriers that others have set up.

Greg