Re: Documentation as Software (was Re: PerlDL license)
Stephen Zander <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "Christian" == Christian Schwarz <email@example.com> writes:
> Christian> Yes. Note, that this is just my interpretation of
> Christian> current policy, and I'm no lawyer. However, no lawyer
> Christian> has shown up yet to prove I'm wrong... :-)
> I'm not sure that interpretation is valid. Documenation is written
> text, not software, and the copyright requirements & protections are
> much clearer under both common law & statutes. IANAL though.
Note the copyright on /usr/doc/debian-policy/fsstnd/fsstnd-1.2.txt.gz:
: The following restrictions apply to reproducing or transmitting the
: document in any form:
: o All copies or portions thereof must identify the document's title
: and section, and must be accompanied by this entire notice in a
: prominent location.
: o No portion of this document may be redistributed in any modified or
: abridged form without the prior approval of the FSSTND coordinator.
Similarly the copyright for the RFC documents allows:
: 1. Copying and distributing the whole RFC without any changes:
A standard would become meaningless if anyone were allowed to
modify and circulate it freely. These copyrights are clearly
appropriate for documents of this type.
I suggest that policy clearly state that standards may be
incorporated in the Debian distribution with copyrights that do not
conform to the DFSG, or that a section be added to the DFSG permitting
standards to prohibit modification.
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
|_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org