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

Re: Standard license blurb for DDP documents?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:59:04PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > How about we unify in one, maybe two, licenses? I suggest we ask DDP authors
> > to either use the GPL with a standard blurb, such as the one used
> > by the Installation Manual (see below for a sample)
> It is a good idea.  But who will take burden of making such an document.
> Also how can we retroactively change license.  For my partt, I can do it
> easily, but what are we going to do with contributions and borrowed
> parts from FAQ.

If the documents are GPL already it's just a matter of changing the current
legal blurb to unify it. There is no license change, just a text change. As
for some other documents, the author needs to relicense them (and contact
those that hold (c) to the document to ask for their permission if there is
anyone else)

> > We require that you properly attribute Debian and the authors of this
> > document on any materials derived from this document. If you modify and
> > improve this document, we request that you notify the authors of this
>                             ^^^^^^^
> > document, via XXXXXXXXX@debian.org
> If we request this on the top of standard GPL, this will be non-GPL
> license due to extra constrain.  As I understand, GPL source can be

Request = Ask != Require

That request can accompany the license as for attribution (which is required)
is mandatory due to copyright laws anyway.

> modified without notifying the source author.  If we change "request" to
> "appreciate", I think this is OK.

IMHO request can stay.

[ DDP license based on FreeBSD's ]
> Why just sgml. XML and tex source :-)

No reason, it can be changed by the document author to suit his document.

> By the way, how about adding few words to address borroewed documents.
> Let's indicate that those borrowed contents are still under the same
> constrain as the original one.

The license of "Borrowed" documents should be acknowledged in the license of
the document which includes it. People should be very careful not to borrow
(i.e. copy & paste) documentation from sources that:

1.- don't have a license (as this means that all copyright restriction holds
and you _can't_ copy & paste from it to other document, unless it's in the
public domain)
2.- don't have a DFSG-free license (GFDL currently is included in that side)

And should make sure that the document's license is compatible with the one
they use. What I typically do is ask authors to relicense or dual-license their documents under the GPL or another free license (like FreeBSD's or the BSD license without the advertising clause). If they don't then I don't copy & paste, I might extract some ideas from their document but I write the text from scratch.

> Javi, I think it is easiest if we agree on one license and require it to
> be used for future documentation only.

Yes, I do too and that's what is in there in the DDP policy draft I wrote a
long time ago I'm just giving additional options for peopl that dislike the
GPL in documentation just in case somebody does. I just want to gather 
consensus to make that part of the draft a policy that we can publish and 
enforce. When everybody has voiced their concerns and we have find consensus
I will call it a deal, update the DDP policy draft and publish that part 
of the draft under www.debian.org/doc/



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: