Just a quick note, reading FC5's features [0] I've found an interesting note. It seems that all the Red Hat Enterprise Linux documentation [1] is going to be released under the OPL license. (the same that the article claims Fedora is using for their documentation, although that is not entirely true [2]) Debian-legal has discussed back in the past that this license is not DFSG-free [3] (and our website license uses it, but has to change, see #238245) Unfortunately, they are not relicencing them under just the GPL, which is what many documentation writers should be using for the DDP (see [4]). So, does anyone know people in the Red Hat/Fedora community that could be approached to ask them to relicense their documents using the GPL? I see a lot of benefit if both Debian and Red Hat / Fedora use the same documentation license, as we could reuse each other's works (minus the OS specific parts). Things like a "User's Guide" or "System's Guide" have a lot of overlap in both projects. Anyone? Javier [0] http://www.redhat.com/magazine/018apr06/features/fc5_overview/?sc_cid=bcm_edm_002 [1] http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/ [2] http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/ and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs Strangely enough, not all documents are under the OPL, the Translation Quick Start Guide, the Jargon Buster, the Mirror Tutorial, the Stateless Linux Tutorial, the "Managing Software with Yum", the "Fedora Core Developer's Guide", and the "Fedora Project Documentation Guide" are under the GFDL [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00003.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00278.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00029.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html#s2.2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature