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

Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2007 23:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's
> > CVS to the DDP
> Add the whole GPL licence with all translation problems that brings? 

Hmmm.. actually I should have said "add the GPL *disclaimer*" and not the
license itself.

Note that even the GPL *disclaimer* should have those "translation problems"
you might be thinking of. For example, see the disclaimer
(it uses a liberal way to refer to the GPL, not exactly what the "How to
apply these terms to your new programs" text from the GPL, as seen in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4, says)

Based on that disclaimer translations can include

a) the license in untranslated form
b) the translated license *if* it has been approved by the FSF 
c) an unapproved translated license, together with the original license

As there are no approved translations nobody should go to b)

In the French translation of that document, they go for the a) approach with
a twist (and additional disclaimer in French :), see:

I guess your comment is related to the discussion in d-i that changed how GPL
translations were handled (Message-id:
<200605011107.00116.elendil@planet.nl>, may 2006), but I think it's perfectly
OK to include just the GPL disclaimer and point to where the GPL is (maybe
provide it in the CDs/DVDs themselves?) instead of including the full GPL
license text in the document itself (as is done in d-i)

> Please not! Let's just have a simple statement and a reference to where 
> the fill licence can be found. 

In any case, your proposal was the same as mine, only mine was not properly

> If that can't be done with the GPL, then 
> let's please choose another DFSG compatible one.

We sure can't change the license. If we assume the document is GPL-licensed
(as it was part of b-f's codebase) then relicensing it would certainly mean
asking *all* copyright holders. Going back to all contributors from 1999 to
the present date is certainly not an option.

I believe the GPL disclaimer is OK, after all, but we might want to have the
debian-cd masters add the GPL itself in the same directory as the Release
Notes, so that we can point to it locally (and not in a remote URL).

Sounds like a good plan to you for (maybe) r1?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: