xLFS Book Licenses

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Tue Aug 22 11:54:57 PDT 2006

On 8/21/06, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently, LFS, HLFS, and Cross-LFS have the same license.  This license
> is "home grown" and has not been vetted by anyone knowledgeable in the
> law.  BLFS went to a dual license format some time ago using a Creative
> Commons License,
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/appendices/creat-comm.html,
> for the book while simultaneously providing a Academic Free License,
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/appendices/ac-free-lic.html,
> for the code.
> Jim has pointed out that there are problems with the CC:
> http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
> http://www.satn.org/archive/2003_04_27_archive.html
> http://zesty.ca/cc.html
> He and Ryan are proposing the Open Publication License,
> http://www.opencontent.org/openpub, for all the books.  I've looked at
> it and it seems to meet the standards of having a recognized license and
> protecting the books.  If it is the community's decision, I have no
> problem with using this in BLFS.  It is used by several organizations
> including:

I'm pretty indifferent, so long as the license is generally very open.
I don't want to see any odd restrictions on how to use the book. But I
do agree with Bruce that using a well documented license is preferred
to "License From Scratch." It would be great to get the book back on
TLDP, though.

> In addition to the main license, I also feel that the books should dual
> license the code (scripts and config files) in the the books with a very
> open license such as the AFL currently in BLFS or a BSD type of license.
>  The reason is to basically leave the instructions unencumbered.  For
> instance, IMO, the output of jhalfs should not have the requirements of
> the OPL, but with only one license there would be unnecessary overhead
> if the instructions are extracted from the books.
> Ryan suggested the GPL for the code, but that has a lot of overhead that
> I don't feel is necessary.  For instance, there would be a need to put
> relatively long GPL statements in each file in the bootscripts and the
> need to include extra copyright files with the jhalfs output.
> A general list of Open Source licenses can be found at
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

Who is this mythical Ryan character? :-)

Same thoughts here. I like the separate license for the code and would
like it to be very open. But, I trust you guys to make a good decision
about a specific license. I really have very little knowledge of
licenses, so I couldn't give a good justification of one license vs.


More information about the cross-lfs mailing list