Re: Documentation as Software (was Re: PerlDL license)
Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
> On 16 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >>"Bob" == Bob Hilliard <hilliard@flinet.com> writes:
> >
> > Bob> A standard would become meaningless if anyone were allowed to
> > Bob> modify and circulate it freely. These copyrights are clearly
> > Bob> appropriate for documents of this type.
> >
> > Bob> I suggest that policy clearly state that standards may be
> > Bob> incorporated in the Debian distribution with copyrights that do
> > Bob> not conform to the DFSG, or that a section be added to the DFSG
> > Bob> permitting standards to prohibit modification.
> >
> > I think I tend to agree. The GPL itself, BTW, is not subject
> > to the GPL. I think we need to add to the DFSG to specifically
> > exclude standards (and define that we mean not executable text
> > documents that would invalidate the document by changing it; and
> > these include standards, the Licences, etc.
>
> I agree for licenses, and perhaps standards. But what about documentation?
> What if someone writes a nice GNU bash manual which is shipped in the bash
> .tar.gz and the license of the manual does not allow changes? Then, we'd
> be able to change bash itself, but not the manual.
Let's mix is up a little more. What about the TEIlite DTDs? The
comprise a standard of sorts, since the DTD itself defines a
standardized way of marking up and structuring documents. And I don't
think this is mere sophistry, since the Electronic Text Center at the
University of Virginia is on the one hand sincerely interested in
forwarding the cause of free electronic texts, and furthermore, the
needs to be significant synchonization efforts in the tools which
understand TEIlite (i.e., the DSSSL stylesheets). Therefore, the
Electronic Text Center put this non-DFSG-complaint clause on thier
DTDs, which other told me meant the DTDs, if I did ship them, must be
put in non-free. Here's the license again:
<!-- Text Encoding Initiative: Guidelines for Electronic -->
<!-- Text Encoding and Interchange. Document TEI P3, 1994. -->
<!-- Copyright (c) 1994 ACH, ACL, ALLC. Permission to copy -->
<!-- in any form is granted, provided this notice is -->
<!-- included in all copies. -->
<!-- These materials may not be altered; modifications to -->
<!-- these DTDs should be performed as specified in the -->
<!-- Guidelines in chapter "Modifying the TEI DTD." -->
<!-- These materials subject to revision. Current versions -->
<!-- are available from the Text Encoding Initiative. -->
For the chapter they refer to in the license, cf
http://etext.virginia.edu/bin/tei-tocs?div=DIV1&id=MD
Personally, I think their restrictions are extremely reasonable; while
they have also provided the ability to extend and modify their DTDs
without actually touching the source files. Which is to say that I
would like to see Debian able to put, for instance the TEIlite DTDs,
under 'main'.
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: