License of {chunk,html,base-html}-stylesheet.xsl ?

Max Bowsher maxb1 at ukf.net
Sat Mar 11 04:01:42 CST 2006


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Markus Laire wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to copy the DocBook XML sources of svnbook for easy redistribution.
>>>
>>> In addition to XML-sources, I'd like to include these 3 files
>>> http://svn.red-bean.com/svnbook/trunk/src/tools/chunk-stylesheet.xsl
>>> http://svn.red-bean.com/svnbook/trunk/src/tools/html-stylesheet.xsl
>>> http://svn.red-bean.com/svnbook/trunk/src/tools/base-html-stylesheet.xsl
>>> for easy HTML-generation, but I didn't find any license-information for them.
>>>
>>> So what is the license of these 3 files, if any?
>>
>> He makes a good point. The book buildsystem is already used in multiple
>> places:
>>
>>   * svnbook
>>   * svn's (currently obsolete) design document
>>   * svn's misc-docs
>>   * producingoss
>>
>> A clear license statement would definitely be a plus.
>>
>> Max.
> 
> I always assumed the license was the same Creative Commons one used for 
> svnbook.  But yeah, we should call that out explicitly.

Ugh, I hate licensing.

It's just dawned on me that, if that's the case, Debian will start
considering the Subversion tarball non-DFSG-compliant again, because of
the design/misc-docs buildsystem. :-(

For completeness, the list of files we are discussing here is:

tools/Makefile.base-rules
tools/Makefile.base-vars
tools/base-html-stylesheet.xsl
tools/chunk-stylesheet.xsl
tools/fo-stylesheet.xsl
tools/html-stylesheet.xsl
tools/bin/find-xsl.py
tools/bin/run-fop.sh


I wonder if, solely for those files, a different license might be
considered?

In any case, does CC address the issue of a buildsystem being re-used by
a separate project?



Max.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFEEqAFfFNSmcDyxYARAoH0AKDFD+1Tg7tonNeeC4ObXRPA8BkM0ACcDoLT
f1a5FLleU4hNli+EEej1pxc=
=Ybmo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the svnbook-dev mailing list