[zeromq-dev] Development topics

Adrian von Bidder avbidder at fortytwo.ch
Thu Feb 11 17:13:36 CET 2010


Heyho!

On Thursday 11 February 2010 16.07:13 Martin Sustrik wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
> > Important point for Debian (and possibly ohers): releasing the
> > documentation under the same license as the software simplifies a lot.
> 
> Is there any "best practice" for licensing the documentation. Does LGPL
> in the root of the tree suffice or should there be separate license
> header in each doc file?

I see that the manpages (as they are in the beta2 tarball - haven't looked 
at the reworked stuff you did.  Yes, I saw your announcement.) all carry a 
copyright notice.  So adding an explicit license statement would be nice.  
(Personally, I hate long copyright blurbs.  You probably can get away with 
"shipped under the same terms as the ZeroMQ distribution" or something like 
that.)

Though technically, the COPYING in the root of the tree *should* be 
sufficient (it certainly is for me.)  OTOH manpages are sometimes viewed out 
of context (you'll find most manpages somewhere on the web, for example), so 
having the license terms or at least a pointer right there is probably not a 
bad idea.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
When [visiting 6 conferences within 3 months] , it is, of course,
obligatory to determine which country has the best beer; normally,
substantial amounts of research are required.
         -- Jonathan Corbet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 389 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20100211/387a89a7/attachment.sig>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list