Advices on choosing a documentation license for an upstream project
[@ -legal: please cc me on reply as I'm not subscribed]
Hi folks,
We (Network UPS Tools project) are currently
looking at creating a complete documentation
set using docbook, for output formats and i18n
reasons.
This improvement in the upstream will, by side
effect, (re)create a nut-doc package in Debian.
Knowing that:
- NUT is a pure GPL project, thus we need a _free_
documentation licence,
- GFDL seems to be to doc what GPL is to source code,
so it seems the good choice for our aim,
- the current consensus on -legal is that GFDL isn't DFSG
compliant in its current form (from what I've read in the
Debian Statement about GFDL and -devel),
- Debian is our GNU/Linux reference distribution for
several reasons, and we don't want nut packages to
be split between main and non-free!
- however, if choosing GFDL, the RM won't consider
it as an RC bug (so not blocking for sarge/future stable),
- the FSF steps about modifying GFDL might not occur
before long (a year seems, according to RMS main
focus on GPL V3)
So, what are your advices about choosing a _free_
documentation licence for NUT?
Thanks for your constructive advices, and
please, don't start any flamewar as it's not
the aim of this mail.
Arnaud Quette
---
DD (nut, wmnut, knutclient)
Upstream developer Team of NUT
...
---
References:
- NUT upstream: http://www.exploits.org/nut/
- NUT Sid packages:
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=nut&searchon=names&subword=1&version=unstable&release=all
- Debian Statement about GFDL:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
Reply to: