Re: Documentation license

> What do people think of changing the documentation license to something > else? My current thought would be something like the Open Publication > License (http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/), with an addendum to the > effect of allowing publishers to print copies of the manual with an > "official" in the title if they contribute some amount of royalties to > the PHP Development Fund (or are we going to be handing over handling > of the money to the ASF?) and contribute their modifications back to us, > otherwise requiring them to put "Unofficial" in the title. > > Since most of the manual content pre-dates any publisher involvement, > I see the official/unofficial thing as a way for publishers who "do the > right thing" to distinguish themselves, without putting any publisher's > name in the title (which is how the Open Publication License structures > things). > > Any thoughts? If people seem to be generally in favor of this, I will do > my best to track down all of the various documentation contributors when > we have a new license we're happy with. > > (Note: I'm not one of the core developers involved with the O'Reilly > book, so this isn't any sort of indication of what is going on with > that effort.) Actually, I just got off the phone with Paula and she was asking about the GPL on the online docs as well. Her main worry is that if chunks of the online documentation makes its way into an O'Reilly book that people will come after O'Reilly and force them to GPL the whole book. I think the opencontent license would help appease her fears a bit so I am all for it. I will check with O'Reilly to see what their views are on this license as well. -Rasmus