Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: >> >>> Kern Sibbald wrote: >>> >>>> John Goerzen wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald, >>>>> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a >>>>> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not >>>>> DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to consider >>>>> other >>>>> license arrangements. >>>>> >>>>> Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't >>>>> want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the >>>>> manual. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes, this is correct, but with the nuance, that I would be very happy >>>> to >>>> see the manual published in physical form provided there is an >>>> agreement >>>> for a reasonable financial contribution to the project, which should >>>> take >>>> into account normal royalties and how much work the publisher (or >>>> whoever >>>> transforms it) has to do to get it in a publishable form. >>>> >>>> In my other email, I attempt to explain my reasoning behind this. >>>> >>> While this is an understandable viewpoint, and one that I can sympathize >>> with, any license that would provide protection such as you describe >>> would most definitely be in violation of the DFSG, and as such, not >>> distributable by debian, at least in the main section (though possibly >>> in non-free). >>> >> On the other hand, note that the GPL requires that distributors notify >> recipients about the Free Software status of the work, which would allow >> people to know "hey, I could get this for free online"; this might >> achieve a similar effect to what you desire. >> > > > >> Furthermore, I don't know >> for sure, but a carefully worded license *might* manage to require a >> specific notice as to the unofficial, non-endorsed status of the manual, >> while still remaining DFSG-free. You could then specifically grant >> distributors the rights to call themselves an official and/or endorsed >> manual in exchange for whatever auxiliary licensing terms you want. >> > > Hmmm. Possibly having an "invariant" section (or whatever it is called) > stating the unofficial, non-endorsed status of any commercially printed > version of the manual would do what you suggest. > Well, Debian doesn't allow invariant sections, but I would think that requiring a prominent notice on any derived work stating it is an unofficial and endorsed work would be ok. > I'm going to try to come up with some such wording over the next week, but > if you or someone else could suggest such a "carefully worded license" for > the Bacula manual that would be acceptable to Debian, it would for me be a > good solution, and I would very likely accept it Sadly, that's really not my forte - could someone who spends more time on -legal help Kern out? > -- obviously, I would like to see the wording before making a firm commitment ... > Of course. > > Best regards, Kern > Cheers! Benjamin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature