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

Re: Please remove RFCs from the documentation in Debian packages

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:30:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > >>people to  http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html. 
> > > This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
> > It claims that GNU FDL sans cover texts and invariant sections is acceptable.
> Which is grossly out of date (read: wrong). This has been discussed to
> death on -legal.

Could you please point to the discussion you mention that makes that
content out of date? I thought I pretty much cover all the -legal
discussions to date at
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/footnotes.en.html#f3. But
maybe the status from december to current date has changed. Branden said
back then:

"The GNU FDL, version 1.2, is not necessarily DFSG-non-free when applied
to a work, but it can be employed in ways that are DFSG-non-free."

However, you (as well as any other DD), of course, know you have CVS r/w
access to the DDP Policy document to update it as needed. Don't you? That
would be _much_ more useful than saying "so it's worse than useless", mind
you. It's hard to make a proper document regarding documentation licensing

a) debian-legal "consensus" switches mindset every other day

b) people at debian-legal do not keep people at debian-doc up-to-date to
latest consensus wrt to documentation licensing (yes, until somebody who is
at -doc says "please RTFM" and somebody at -legal says "TFM is worthless")



PS: Notice that, as far as I see, Aj's post on debian-legal (is that the 
current "consensus"?) implies that GFDL documents _can_ be DFSG-free

Attachment: pgptuOhH_abXU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: