Re: suggestion: DFDG - Debian Free Documentation Guidelines [was: Discussion - non-free software removal]
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 14:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:20:32PM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > This applies for docs generated out of a package but not e.g. for RFCs
> > (see the doc-rfc-* problem) and Books like selfhtml. My intention was to
> > set up guidelines for requirements for these type of docs. Current DFSG
> > talkes about GPL, BSD and Artistic licenses, what about the Open
> > Publication License, Free Documentation License,...?
>
> I suggest you read the archives of debian-legal for answers to your
> questions.
>
> In a very brief summary, no one has yet disagreed with the assertion
> that a work licensed under the OPL is Free if none of the license
> options are excersied. No one has yet disagreed with the assertion that
> that works licensed the GNU FDL are Free if there are no Invariant
> Sections and no Cover Texts.
just to play devil's advocate, what's the difference between an
invariant section and the normal language that says you can't modify the
copyright section of all the files. Yea, it's a bit nit picky, just
wondering if people brought up that argument b4?
Reply to: