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

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy


You had too exciting subject line :-)
Your intent seems much reasonable after all.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:15:17PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:39:51PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> >  [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
> (..)
> > >  > 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.
> I am still wating for Adam patches (it's been a while). However, I do not 
> want to change it from a draft into a official policy. I just want to add 
> it to the DDP website documentation and mark it _there_ as a draft. The 
> fact that it's not even listed in the DDP website reduces it usefulness.
> So, I was basicly asking (probably wrongly worded) to:
> a) add a link to the draft from w.d.o/doc/ddp (currently hidden under 
> w.d.o/doc/docpolicy)

No problem.

> b) add it to the list of developers' manuals (w.d.o/doc/index and 
> w.d.o/doc/devel-manuals)

Next step.  

(Let's preface.sgml to state that this is working dpcument for discussion
at least.)

Anyway, let's wait how Adam's rewrite end up :-)

> Of course, I'm not going to change it's status. It will still be called a 
> 'draft' but it will be given wider exposure. Few people (as demonstrated by 
> the discussion at -devel and the fact that people at -legal are not aware 
> of the license section) are aware that we are drafting a policy for 
> documentation in the Debian project.
> > 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.
> I probably worded it wrongly, it's still a DRAFT to me, not proposed 
> policy, but it's not being given enough exposure. Notice that I could make 
> the changes myself in the wml sources without asking (and I have meant to 
> do so for quite some time) but I wanted to say it first here in case anyone 
> opposed for it to be "officialy" published in _draft_ form.

You had somewhat right text but title was too sensational

> > 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)
> No he did not, but still, there have been few updates of the document 
> itself (and I did tell Adam to go ahead and hack it as needed)
> > >  > We can still keep the draft status in the webpages but it would give it
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TRUE !!!

> > >  > 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.
> > >  >
> Is it clear now.


> > 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
> > 
> That's precisely what the current policy document says. Please re-read it.
> > So if this section survive as a part of policy document, please update
> > this accordingly.
> It already says so. It's not clear to me it would be useful to move the 
> discussion on other acceptable licenses to the appendix. I would gladly 
> include a statement on current accepted documentation licenses if -legal 
> people were so nice as to write it, instead of keep arguing that the DDP 
> policy is wrong and inaccurate. They all have CVS access to the that 
> document and can modify it as needed.
> I only have so much time to dig into -legal archives and extract
> discussions on documentation licenses, but it should be obvious to people
> that read the document that I have made a best effort to compile references
> to discussions and consensus when available. I have not yet seen a message
> in -legal with enough consensus contradicting what it's already in the DDP
> Policy. The latest "conensus" I've seen is Anthony Towns's (Message-ID:
> <20030419132938.GA13484@azure.humbug.org.au> [1]), those ideas were
> seconded by most -legal members. I'm waiting for someone to point me to a
> (more recent) consensuated (sp?) mail contradicting that one. I still
> haven't seen it (and no, however worthy Branden's opinions are, he does not 
> represent the whole at -legal, IMHO)

I just came back on net yeasterday.  Now you have it :-)

> In any case, I do not care as much as the current content as for the
> content to be as accurate as possible. I would appreciate help from people
> at -legal but it seems that the only help I get is the usual "bash & run" 
> stuff. Who said maintaining documents wasn't fun? :-)

Let's get -legal people to discuss and contribute.  Just for that, I
think your mail was effective to get it done.  

I wonder you did this half intentionally.


> [1] 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html
> AFAIK no other thread asks for consensus on this issue. I've seen a lot of 
> debate and discussion...

Attachment: pgpMhOUEYFDB0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: