xLFS Book Licenses

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Tue Aug 22 10:42:40 PDT 2006

Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> 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 honestly don't know one license from the other. But the OPL looks like
> it would protect LFS from being published by a 3rd party. Which is
> really the main thing in my eyes.

That is correct.  Note that it has already happened to LFS once:


This was *not* authorized by Gerard.

>> 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.
> Just one scenario I'm curious about. Say I have a distro based on xLFS
> and I would like to give it away/sell it. How is that going to affect
> what I'm able to do (give away/sell). Under the OPL it looks like that
> wouldn't be possible to do either without the author(s) permission.
> Would the second license on code (scripts and config files) change this
> scenario?

If you create a distro, you are using the results of the instructions to
create it.  That is not copyrighted in any way.  Its the instructions
themselves that have copyrights.  I would prefer that the instructions
be completely free.  For instance, if someone want to create a package
management system based on the xLFS instructions, I'd prefer the
instructions be unencumbered.

  -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list