Re: DDP CVS commit by jfs: ddp/manuals.sgml/ddp-policy/en common.sgml
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:20:13AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:16:34AM -0600, DDP CVS wrote:
> > CVSROOT: /cvs/debian-doc
> > Module name: ddp
> > Changes by: jfs 03/05/18 10:16:34
> >
> > Modified files:
> > manuals.sgml/ddp-policy/en: common.sgml
> >
> > Log message:
> > Added information on the (approved) TLDP license
>
> You need to be careful here. The LDP has several licences, some of which
> are free and some of which aren't. The discussion on debian-legal to
> which you refer was about http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html; however,
> you're recommending http://www.tldp.org/manifesto.html, which is a
> different licence and at best requires complicated manoeuvrings to
> exercise the relicense-under-GPL option before it becomes free. On its
> own, it's non-free, because it requires derivative works to be sent to
> the LDP.
>
> Please change manifesto.html to COPYRIGHT.html (careful about case -
> copyright.html is even more non-free ...), and refer to it not as the
> "boilerplate license" but as the "Linux Documentation Project License
> v2.0" or "LDPL 2.0".
What license do people you recommend for new Debian documentation?
I'm working on a newbie help program which I initially made GPL; but
it's really mostly documentation. Also, we're almost ready to start
the new install manual.
--
Debian GNU/Linux Operating System
By the People, For the People
Chris Tillman (a people instance)
Reply to: