Re: [eigen] legal question

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

+1 to CC-attribution
-1 to CC-share alike. That makes the license viral like the GPL. Is in really necessary?


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You do well to ask: indeed, we forgot to pick a free license for our
documentation. We need to do that for a variety of reasons. Debian
among others is distributing our documentation:

There are 2 mainstream licenses that would make sense for us:

This page is a good read on this topic:

My feeling is that we're a little better off with the slightly simpler
CC license. It seems simpler because (AFAIK) it just doesn't have
provisions of Cover Text / Invariant Sections. It's also nice that CC
licenses like CC BY-SA make it clear in their very name what they are
doing. No strong opinion though.

Our wiki has defaulted to the FDL 1.2 but since there are few
copyright holders, it should be easy enough to relicense. We must have
compatible licenses for the wiki and docs, to allow moving content
between them.

OK for CC BY-SA ?


2010/7/22 Helmut Jarausch <jarausch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi,
> I'm selling my lecture notes in C++ to my students below cost.
> I'd like to attach Eigen's QuickRefPage (including the URL) as an
> appendix.
> Are there any legal problems about this?
> Helmut.
> --
> Helmut Jarausch
> Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
> RWTH - Aachen University
> D 52056 Aachen, Germany

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+