On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:08:56AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:09:15PM -0500, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote: > > I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing. > > However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0. > > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ > > Is it DFSG-free? > > I checked the > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses > > and they consider it free if none of the part VI optional clauses are > > excercised. > > It is free under the same conditions (no optional clauses). I disagree. I had this position myself years ago, but I no longer hold it. The current discussion thread should make it pretty obvious why. Our interpretation of the OPL has been much more detailed and careful this time. The last time we looked it, it was almost as an afterthought, and only in contrast to the GNU FDL. The OPL deserves to be judged on its own merits, and I think we have done so this time around. -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he branden@debian.org | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature