Re: GFDL'ed documents with Front Cover text
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 01:08:16AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > This implies that a document with no invariant sections, but with
> > one-sentence front- and back-cover sections does not meet the DFSG?
> > Is that Debian's position?
>
> > For example, GMP has Front-Cover Text
>
> > A GNU Manual
>
> > and Back-Cover Text
>
> > You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software
>
> > and no invariant sections. Must I really throw this document
> > out of Debian (BTS 335403)?
[...]
> So yes, the current manual seems to fail the DFSG as confirmed by the latest
> GR, and can't be distributed in main for etch without a license change. I
> would hope that this doesn't mean "throwing it out" of Debian, though; if we
> fail to secure even such a modest licensing change as to make such cover
> texts removable, then I would encourage you to consider at least shipping
> the documentation in non-free.
OK; let's concentrate on requesting such a "modest licensing change".
I have approached the GMP developers both on the GMP list and
privately. It turns out that the copyright is assigned to FSF so they
have no authority (or so they claim) to change the license. I was
advised to contact FSF about it.
I'll bet that this is not the only documentation copyrighted by FSF
and licensed under the GFDL with only short cover texts standing in
the way of Debian's acceptance. If so, I expect it will be more
efficient if we can approach the FSF for a blanket license change. I
also expect that some readers of debian-legal have a contact or two
within the FSF. I imagine that writing directly to someone would be
more effective than an email to licensing@fsf.org. Perhaps someone
who's been there could offer tips on who and how to approach this?
While I don't mind writing the emails to pursue this, I don't really
feel I'm best qualified to articulate the nuances of Debian's position
on the matter. Perhaps one of the debian-legal readers would prefer
to take up the charge?
Thanks,
-Steve
Reply to: