I think the book is aleady done :-)

[Chua Wen Kiat]

Seems like every license has it's problem.
though gpl is the only problem free, but it's for software not
documents... right?

Anyway... had modified the existing disclaimer to this

Disclaimer
Copyright (c) 2004 Chua Wen Kiat.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
for non commercial purpose, so long as all appropriate credit is
provided, including author's name and original URL. The author makes no
claim to the accuracy of the information provided. This information is
provided in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY.
Use this information at your own risk. Always make proper backups and
use caution when modifying critical system files.

Straight forward enough? It's freely available for any purpose except
for commercial purpose... like printing it and sell for $

Objection?

Regards,
Chua Wen Kiat


On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 21:40 +1100, George Deka wrote:
> CC ASA2.0 still has its problems.
> the only problem free one is GPL
> 
> 
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:57:57 +0100, Quique Enrique Matías Sánchez
> <cronopios at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:29:32 -0600, John Hornbeck <hornbeck at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Dear John,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the licensing issue.
> > > >
> > > > Now I understand. Ok i'll remove the line in the next release. I didn't
> > > > think there was a license matter. Idea was to let people have it in
> > > > whole and they can do whatever they want with it, just leave a little
> > > > credit to the author that's all.
> > 
> > Chua,
> > thanks for writing it and your willingness to make its contents free :-)
> > 
> > 
> > > > How would you suggest I should write the licensing part? I have no
> > > > problem for others to use/modify it. (The disclaimer was actually cut
> > > > and paste from elsewhere)
> > > >
> > > I would suggest the gpl or lgpl license for your doc.  Mainly the gpl
> > > though that way anyone can use it for any reason, and they will still
> > > give you credit.
> > 
> > The GNU GPL is intended for *code*. It's not really well suited for
> > documentation.
> > I'd rather suggest using a documentation license.
> > 
> > The Free Software Foundation promotes the GNU FDL
> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html). Unfortunately, even if you
> > don't use invariant sections, it has a number of problems, including
> > incompatibility with the GPL. See
> > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html for the
> > debian-legal opinions.
> > 
> > How about a Creative Commons license, such as the
> > Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0
> > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/) ?
> > 
> > 
> > > I will start migrating your data over into our guide and than start
> > > posting the work as it emerges.
> > 
> > Chua, did you consider joining the Ubuntu documentation team?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Quique
> > 
> > --
> > It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > ubuntu-doc mailing list
> > ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
> > http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
> > 
> 
>