[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 07:21:58PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> 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)

You mean that even if the original GPL blurb does not say anything about
GPL 2.0 or *later*, we can switch?   I know it is distastefully pedantic
but I just want to be safe not to step on any issues.  Did all old GPL
standard phrase allow us to use later version of GPL?  Maybe we should
ask debian-legal.

> > > 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

I got your point.  No strong objection.  But I have some suggestion

> 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.

"demand", "request", "ask", ... all these words are still stronger than
the words like "appreciate", "recommend", ....  Did you clear this with
debian-legal folks.  That is the better place to get full review.

> [ 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.

OK :-)

> > 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/


As for policy, adam's point was sound although he has not given us his
counter proposal yet.

policy should be made shorter and contain essentials only.  Maybe we
should have technical implimentation guideline to go with it.  Also, we
should carry responsibility all of us are comfortable.  I really do not
have a guts to take as much responsibility as you stated there.  d-doc
is not as resouceful as security team.

Reply to: