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 Which is grossly out of date (read: wrong).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 Could you please point to the discussion you mention that makes that content out of date?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." (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00285.html) 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 if 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") Regards Javi 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 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html
Attachment:
pgptuOhH_abXU.pgp
Description: PGP signature