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

Re: Please remove RFCs from the documentation in Debian packages



On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:23:16PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> 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 content out of date?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)

I've changed my mind about that, thanks in no small measure to the
observations of a lot of other people.

> 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

We don't change mindset "every other day".  We've changed it after six
months.

> 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")

Perhaps debian-legal needs its own document, to which the DDP document
can merely refer.

> 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

That summary is correct as far as it goes, but it does not enumerate all
of the problems that have been found with the GNU FDL.

If and only if:

1) there are no Invariant Sections
2) there are no Cover Texts
3) there are no Acknowledgements
4) there are no Dedications
5) the restrictions on copying in quantity are waived

...and that's not even a complete list.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    I must confess to being surprised
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    by the magnitude of incompatibility
branden@debian.org                 |    with such a minor version bump.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    -- Manoj Srivastava

Attachment: pgpQRs4ftPNaw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: