[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intent of package LDP

--On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 11:59 am -0500 "Ben Pfaff" <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu>

> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>    I think it is not DFSG-compliant, because of this:
> 	* Any translation or derivative work of Linux Installation and
> 	  Getting Started must be approved by the author in writing before
> 	  distribution.
>    The funny thing is that later, it says "All source code in Linux
>    Installation and Getting Started is placed under the GNU General Public
>    License", which is incompatible with the fact that derivative works
>    must be approved by the author. The GPL does not require this.
> So example code is under the GPL.  This is different from the manuals
> themselves being under another license.  Unless I misunderstand the
> situation, this makes sense to me.

Certainly the situation makes sense.

Whether or not documentation has to be covered by the DFSG is a moot point,
subject to clarification by a new version of the DFSG at some stage...


|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd        |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  Debian GNU/Linux - "Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem -     |
|                      and we're it!" (paraphrased from IRC)           |

Reply to: