# Handbook license?



## lele (Sep 13, 2012)

Hello,

I'm considering porting the FreeBSD Handbook to Debian Linux.  My understanding is that the license of the Handbook allows it:

"Redistribution and use in source [...] and 'compiled' forms [...] with or without modification, are permitted [...]"

However I don't understand whether I would be allowed to publish such a derivative work under the GNU Free Documentation License while giving credit to the authors of the FreeBSD Handbook.  I'd say I would be allowed, but I'm not sure.

Any clarifications?  Thank you.


----------



## numpad5 (Sep 13, 2012)

The handbook should be under the same BSD license as the OS, but I am not sure about all the legal difficulties.  Why are you porting it to Debian linux anyway?  There are already alot of linux sites that post manpages and stuff from FreeBSD, couldn't you just download it in htm or something?

What I am getting at is I'm not sure what you would want to change to make it derivative that would make it useful for Debian.


----------



## lele (Sep 13, 2012)

@numpad5

The Handbook is what drew me to FreeBSD in the first place.  I have given up switching to FreeBSD because, as a non-technically inclined guy, I have found the experience to be too time-consuming and maybe not worth at all for a heavy laptop user like me.

Basically, I would borrow from the Handbook its structure and its Unix-related stuff while rewriting the Debian-specific parts.

Linux distros lack a well-written handbook.  Debian has the Debian Reference, but the FreeBSD Handbook is a masterpiece of technical writing, and the Debian project would benefit from having something similar.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 13, 2012)

The Handbook license is shown at the beginning of the PDF version.  It's a BSD license.  You cannot relicense it, only the owner of a license can change it.


----------



## lele (Sep 13, 2012)

@wblock@

Yes, I had read that license in its HTML version: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/LEGALNOTICE.html

Porting the Handbook would require extensive editing...  Maybe I could release the port with a dual license: GNU for the new chapters, BSD for those mostly derived from the Handbook?  If I'm not mistaken, GPL software can use BSD code, therefore something similar should be allowed for documentation, too, right?


----------



## lele (Sep 13, 2012)

I forgot to mention that, according to the GNU website, the FreeBSD Documentation License is compatible with the GNU Free Documentation license:

"FreeBSD Documentation License  (#FreeBSDDL)

This is a permissive non-copyleft free documentation license that is compatible with the GNU FDL." (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeDocumentationLicenses)


----------



## swa (Sep 13, 2012)

Just curious, why do want to relicense it ? Maybe I'm wrong but code contribute to GPL-ed software (that was original BSD) can't be contributed back to BSD because GPL says it has to stay GPL.


----------



## UNIXgod (Sep 13, 2012)

swa said:
			
		

> Just curious, why do want to relicense it ? Maybe I'm wrong but code contribute to GPL-ed software (that was original BSD) can't be contributed back to BSD because GPL says it has to stay GPL.



A couple years ago some noobs tried doing that with some openbsd software. They failed miserably. IIRC they even attempted to remove the BSD license in the process which of course is negligent.


----------



## lele (Sep 13, 2012)

@swa

You're right: GNU licenses are more restrictive than BSD ones.  I subscribe to the GNU philosophy, therefore relicensing a derivative work (when feasible) under a GNU license is desirable.  And since BSD licenses have always allowed derivative works under more restrictive licenses, I infer that the BSD philosophy is fine with that.

In this particular case, the derivative work would be useless to the FreeBSD project anyway, because the additional work would be related to Debian.


----------



## lele (Sep 13, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> A couple years ago some noobs tried doing that with some openbsd software. They failed miserably. IIRC they even attempted to remove the BSD license in the process which of course is negligent.



Negligent indeed, and disrespectful of other people's work.  GNU-licensed and BSD-licensed works can coexist.  The way a software can contain source files released under different compatible licenses, a book could do the same with chapters.


----------



## UNIXgod (Sep 13, 2012)

lele said:
			
		

> Negligent indeed, and disrespectful of other people's work.  GNU-licensed and BSD-licensed works can coexist.  The way a software can contain source files released under different compatible licenses, a book could do the same with chapters.



IANAL, Have you consulted the FSF about re-licensing? If your new chapters are under a different license but keep the originals intact that may be what the BSD license is all about. Interestingly it came about when AT&T began to remove UC Berkeley's credit from the OS in the 80's.

Curious why you would need a document to be under GPL? Why not keep it BSD or use MIT or even creative commons?


----------



## oed (Sep 13, 2012)

*The Debian Administrator's Handbook*

lele, are you aware of "The Debian Administrator's Handbook"?

http://debian-handbook.info/


----------



## kpa (Sep 13, 2012)

How much of the FreeBSD handbook is actually useful information for Debian? We are talking about two very different systems here. What is the motivation for using the FreeBSD handbook as the starting point? Writing a handbook for Debian from scratch using the FreeBSD documentation tools wouldn't be that much more work I bet.


----------



## lele (Sep 13, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> IANAL, Have you consulted the FSF about re-licensing? If your new chapters are under a different license but keep the originals intact that may be what the BSD license is all about.



I've not consulted the FSF, but thanks for the hint: if I end up pursuing this project, it would be wise to do that.



			
				UNIXgod said:
			
		

> Curious why you would need a document to be under GPL? Why not keep it BSD or use MIT or even creative commons?



As I stated above, I like the GNU philosophy, therefore a GNU license makes more sense.  I could change my mind, though.



			
				oed said:
			
		

> lele, are you aware of "The Debian Administrator's Handbook"?
> 
> http://debian-handbook.info/



Thanks for the link.  Yes, I know about that book, and actually I'm reading it at the moment.  Besides being "the missing manual", it is a good book, yet I enjoyed reading the FreeBSD Handbook much more.  It may be that the Debian Administrator's Handbook is much younger.  That said, after I'll have finished reading it, I may realize that another manual on Debian would not be useful, and limit myself to sending suggestions to the authors, or filling the gaps.

You know what?  I suspect I've fallen in love with FreeBSD... I can't help it ;-)  And the Handbook did the trick.  Hence, I thought that since using FreeBSD wouldn't be a pragmatic decision, I could at least port some of its awesomeness in my environment.



			
				kpa said:
			
		

> How much of the FreeBSD handbook is actually useful information for Debian? We are talking about two very different systems here. What is the motivation for using the FreeBSD handbook as the starting point? Writing a handbook for Debian from scratch using the FreeBSD documentation tools wouldn't be that much more work I bet.



You are underestimating the advantage of having a great roadmap available when starting a journey.  GNU/Linux is a Unix derivative, hence the differences are not that great.  The FreeBSD Handbook, being the technical masterpiece it is, would serve as both a great roadmap and a style reference.  One would only have to fill in the gaps.





			
				UNIXgod said:
			
		

> IANAL, Have you consulted the FSF about re-licensing? If your new chapters are under a different license but keep the originals intact that may be what the BSD license is all about.



I've not consulted the FSF, but thanks for the hint: if I end up pursuing this project, it would be wise to do that.



			
				UNIXgod said:
			
		

> Curious why you would need a document to be under GPL? Why not keep it BSD or use MIT or even creative commons?



As I stated above, I like the GNU philosophy, therefore a GNU license makes more sense.  I could change my mind, though.



			
				oed said:
			
		

> lele, are you aware of "The Debian Administrator's Handbook"?
> 
> http://debian-handbook.info/



Thanks for the link.  Yes, I know about that book, and actually I'm reading it at the moment.  Besides being "the missing manual", it is a good book, yet I enjoyed reading the FreeBSD Handbook much more.  It may be that the Debian Administrator's Handbook is much younger.  That said, after I'll have finished reading it, I may realize that another manual on Debian would not be useful, and limit myself to sending suggestions to the authors, or filling the gaps.

You know what?  I suspect I've fallen in love with FreeBSD... I can't help it ;-)  And the Handbook did the trick.  Hence, I thought that since using FreeBSD wouldn't be a pragmatic decision, I could at least port some of its awesomeness in my environment.



			
				kpa said:
			
		

> How much of the FreeBSD handbook is actually useful information for Debian? We are talking about two very different systems here. What is the motivation for using the FreeBSD handbook as the starting point? Writing a handbook for Debian from scratch using the FreeBSD documentation tools wouldn't be that much more work I bet.



You are underestimating the advantage of having a great roadmap available when starting a journey.  GNU/Linux is a Unix derivative, hence the differences are not that great.  The FreeBSD Handbook, being the technical masterpiece it is, would serve as both a great roadmap and a style reference.  One would only have to fill in the gaps.


----------



## plamaiziere (Sep 14, 2012)

lele said:
			
		

> In this particular case, the derivative work would be useless to the FreeBSD project anyway, because the additional work would be related to Debian.



If I remember well, Debian does not accept the GFDL license as a free license:
See http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001

"Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of concern about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether it is, in fact, a "free" license. This document attempts to explain why Debian's answer is "no"." 

edit: I'm wrong. This is one option of the vote, the result is that GFDL is free if there is no invariant section. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNU_Free_Documentation_License_.28GFDL.29 

Also did you read the GFDL? IMHO it is too hard to understand this f* license just for a documentation. This is why I prefer BSD like license 

Regards.


----------

