Documentation Licensing (was Re: [scoop@freshmeat.net: gnumaniak 1.0])
--On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 4:31 pm -0500 "Mitch Blevins" <mblevin@debian.org>
wrote:
> Ben Gertzfield wrote:
>> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
>>
>> Tom> This sounds very useful! Are we going to package it somehow?
>>
>> Ben> The problem is that one of the license requirements (3c (?))
>> Ben> puts it into non-free.
>>
>> Again, the DFSG can't really apply to documentation. Look at the Perl
>> FAQ; we'd have to put it in non-free if we applied the DFSG to
>> documentation.
>>
>> This has come up before :)
>
> Is this true about not applying to documentation?
>
> After a few emails, ragnar is convinced to modify his license
> 'for the good of gnumanity' ;)
>
> He is currently contacting his co-authors to run the idea by them.
>
> If this documentation-exemption is true, then I feel I've been lying
> to him by telling him he needs to change it to get it into main.
It's a pending problem (see below).
--On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 6:36 pm -0500 "Ben Pfaff" <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu>
wrote:
> Ben Gertzfield <che@debian.org> writes:
>
> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
>
> Tom> This sounds very useful! Are we going to package it somehow?
>
> Ben> The problem is that one of the license requirements (3c (?))
> Ben> puts it into non-free.
>
> Again, the DFSG can't really apply to documentation. Look at the Perl
> FAQ; we'd have to put it in non-free if we applied the DFSG to
> documentation.
>
> This has come up before :)
>
> If in fact there is an exception for documentation, could we please
> add something to policy about this? Currently the policy manual just
> says
>
> 2.1.2 The main section
>
> Every package in "main" must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free
> Software Guidelines).
>
> with no exceptions at all (although a few additional restrictions are
> listed).
It is under debate. Or was.
--On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 3:32 pm -0800 "Joey Hess" <joey@kitenet.net> wrote:
> Mitch Blevins wrote:
>> Is this true about not applying to documentation?
>
> No. There was a huge flame war, with no conclusion. Documentation must
> currently comply with the DFSG to get into main.
Not really true.
We currently have no (licensing) policy on documentation. It is possible to
construe our social contract (I just reread it) as meaning that the DFSG
only applies to software. Note that it is the Debian Free *Software*
Guidelines.
It is believed by many here (but not all) that something *like* the DFSG
should also be applied to documentation. The details of exactly what should
apply to documentation were the subject of a long debate on -policy about 2
months ago.
Alas, I have been off the policy list for about 2 months, so I am out of
date as to recent developments. We came to no conclusion, however.
Anyone who feels strongly in this matter should restart the debate over on
-policy (*not* here on -devel).
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| 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: