[erlang-questions] Erlang documentation cleanup (PREV: R13B01 modules, quick reference)

[Michael Turner]

On 8/11/2009, "Ulf Wiger" <ulf.wiger@REDACTED> wrote:

>You can reproduce it and modify it, but you must
>credit Ericsson for the original, and you are not
>allowed to put it under a more restrictive license

Yes, but "it" is only the XML, in this case.  What's generated from
that XML source (if the docs at erlang.org are any indication) says just
"Copyright (C) 1999-2009 Ericsson AB", with no reference to the EPL.

Does this mean that Ericsson puts the properly [*] human-readable
documentation under a more restrictive license than the XML source from
which that documentation is generated?  Or what?

>More here:
>
>http://www.erlang.org/license/EPL1x0-explained.html

Yeah, but it still just says "code" there.  Nothing about the
documentation.  If the XML is considered code (and the code that
generated the docs is *definitely* code), that still doesn't
necessarily apply to what Ericsson is explicitly copyrights with *no*
mention of EPL, i.e., the documentation that gets generated from the
(EPL-covered) code.

This is kind of crazy, I know.  And stupid, too.  But also legally
interesting.  (No, I am not a lawyer.  Just a sometime software engineer
and sometime patent translator who has spent some time in the company of
IP lawyers.  Let me tell you: they can smell fear.  And you know those
rumors that they can be repelled by crucifixes and/or garlic, and can be
permanently laid to rest with silver bullets and/or stakes through the
heart?  Not true.  None of them.)

-michael turner

[*] The cavalier use of "properly" has already raised a question of
interpretation in this thread, so let me clarify for this context: I
don't regard XML as properly human-readable, any more than a live
chicken is properly human-edible. [**]

[**] Refer to "geek" in a dictionary, if you are confused by this
allusion.