LFS on TLDP

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Oct 25 12:31:50 PDT 2004


Uli Fahrenberg wrote:
> Matthew Burgess, Oct 25, 18:37 +0100:
> 
>> I think there are licensing issues with the TLDP.  TLDP want one of 
>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/.  Our current license/copyright 
>> text is at
> 
> 
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/unstable/prologue/legalnotice.html 
>>
> 
> 
>> Changing this, if it is indeed necessary and desirable, will require 
>> the consent of all current and previous contributors.
> 
> 
> Excuse me if I missed some previous discussion on this, but to me it 
> seems that any change of license conditions only requires the consent of 
> one person: Gerard. IIUC he's the only copyright holder.

Well I certainly didn't sign any copyright assignment forms when making 
contributions to the project, nor do I think other contributors have. 
Therefore my contributions are copyrighted to me IIUC (IANAL and all 
that jazz).  Of course that will sound a lot stronger than it is meant 
to be.  I don't have a problem at all with the license being changed, I 
was just under the impression that I still hold copyright on my 
contributions to the project.

>> I'm not sure how trivial (or otherwise) a process this will be.
> 
> 
> Reaching Gerard is sometimes difficult :-), but otherwise changing the 
> license should be trivial. As James notes, this is completely opposite 
> to the situation with BLFS.

Apologies for my ignorance (and note to self - never admit such blatant 
ignorance in public again!) but I'm not aware of the BLFS situation with 
regard to this particular issue.  Any pointers to list discussions would 
be gratefully received.

> Another possibility of course is to have the LFS license OSI approved. I 
> don't know how easy *that* is though; I remember when the LaTeX Project 
> wanted the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License) approved, boy what a 
> hassle. (And in the end they didn't.)

I'd much rather the license be changed to something already approved by 
the OSI - adding yet another license to the mix isn't going to help 
anyone's comprhension of the situation IMHO.  This is just my personal 
opinion though, based on my own searches for a suitable license for my 
own projects at home.  The one I eventually settled for, for software, 
was the boost license: http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt - it's the 
only one I could even get close to understanding! For written works, 
again personally, I quite like the look of the Creative Commons 
Attribution Noncommercial license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/) but that doesn't 
appear to be on the OSI's long list of approved licenses either.

> I agree with James here: Either we take care of always being up-to-date, 
> or we pull it off.

I agree too, although the initial effort will be getting the first TLDP 
approved version in - after that we should be able to keep it up-to-date 
relatively easily.

Best regards,

Matt.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list