Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code is distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not. The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about opinions on the best license tag for it. The doc license looks like this: Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use. Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. and MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly granted above. Also: I am thinking of putting the docs into a separate -docs subpackage with its own License tag, rather than confusing matters by labeling the whole package with two very different tags. Any objections to that? Could the "with the software" bit above be read to prohibit such a scheme? Plan C would be to drop the docs entirely and just offer a link to mysql's website, but I don't like that very much ... regards, tom lane _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
