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

RE: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

 [I am not stably subscribed to debian-* yet; please CC: me.]
 [This is not really debian-devel issue yet. So removed from Reply-To:]

Thanks Branden for reminding us about important insights to the licensing 
issues as below.  We have at least 2 separate issues with Javi's mail.

  1) Javi's assessment of ddp-policy document status
  2) Contents of ddp-policy document

>  # Subject: Let's remove the 'draft' from the DDP Policy
>  # From: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena <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?

This is not true.  Adam stated against and I concurred.  Adam was supposed
to update its content with much narrower scope contents so this document
becomes acceptable as a policy document.  He is slow doing it but that
does not make it right for Javi to state above statement.

Besides, the contents such as:
       * 3.5.3 Files installed by the Debian package (Option1)
       * 3.5.4 Files installed by the Debian package (Option2)
exist, too.  These 2 options are there because THIS is DRAFT.  Proposed
policy must have only one of the two.

Did Adam indicated he stopped doing rewrite of ddp-policy?  Did I miss
something?  (Sorry for my long absense from debian-doc@l.d.o)

>  > 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

Very interesting insight.

I can not speak for Adam but, IMHO, these section are good as a part of 
appendix. For policy document, we should simply 

  * require document to be DSFG Free
  * recommend to use GPL

So if this section survive as a part of policy document, please update
this accordingly.
>  --
>  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: pgpYlzwlObaQP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: