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

removing the "draft" from the DDP policy



[I am not subscribed to debian-doc; please follow-up to debian-legal.]

# Subject: Let's remove the 'draft' from the DDP Policy
# From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
# To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org
# Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:55:11 +0200

> Since no one has spoken against the documentation which I presented as a 
> draft DDP Policy I was thinking if it would be useful to publish this at 
> the website since the questions about license+documentation seems to
> came up often. Anyone against it?
> 
> We can still keep the draft status in the webpages but it would give it 
> a wider audience to it. Also, I would appreciate any help from fello doc 
> maintainers to polish the sections which are in a _very_ draft mode.
> 
> More info:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/

I strongly object to this unless you're willing to mark the very
section[1] you describe as motivating your proposal as "_very_ draft".
I say this because it is *not* representative of current consensus on
debian-legal.

To wit:

1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts.

2) The OPL does not satisfy the DFSG even if neither of the license
options are exercised.

Moreover the position you currently summarize is inconsistent; it says
required cover texts are are okay if it's the OPL that requires them,
but not if it's the GNU FDL that requires them.

[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html#s2.2

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     You are not angry with people when
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     you laugh at them.  Humor teaches
branden@debian.org                 |     them tolerance.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- W. Somerset Maugham

Attachment: pgpYQMdJcc2x0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: