Javi, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org) > > 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. Yes. > > 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> ), 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. Regards, Osamu >  > 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...
Description: PGP signature