Documentation Licensing

[Gervase Markham]

Matthew P. Barnson wrote:
> After researching it this morning, I think Creative Commons Attribution 1.0
> license fits the bill nicely.  Yes, you are going to have attribution bloat
> over time, but that is not a big deal.  It represents perhaps one or two
> pages out of the book which people commonly skip over anyway.

But what happens if I copy a chapter into another book (say on 
webtools)? And then a year later, someone else takes a chapter from that 
(it may not contain any of your content, but he's not to know) for his 
own use?

Not putting attribution in the license doesn't mean we wouldn't have any 
- it just means that if someone wanted to copy a paragraph into 
something else, it wouldn't come with baggage.

> This license woud nicely dovetail with my original objectives for the work:
> allow free redistribution and modification, prevent people from "closing"
> it up (preventing others from freely redistributing it), but require that
> author credits and copyright remain intact.  

Attribution 1.0 does allow people to close it up - you'd need to add 
ShareAlike to prevent that. But see my previous post for the problems 
with that.

Gerv