Re: Gnus Manual License
Yavor Doganov <yavor@doganov.org> writes:
> Note that during the last GFDL discussion on -vote (prior to the GR)
> Anton Zinoviev and I contacted RMS about some clarifications. He
> believes that a manual might be non-free for someone, if it contains
> a long enough list with lots of invariant sections, or sections that
> contain abusive material. That doesn't make the license non-free,
> though.
This actually is in accord with the latest Debian resolution which
states pretty clearly that without any invariant parts (a bit of an
oxymoron, since license texts and copyright notices are illegal to
modify in any case) a GFDLed document is fit to include in Debian
main.
The problem is that where such parts are valid, it depends on the
parts whether this is the case, and thus should be left to the
discretion of the package maintainer.
I'd consider it useful to have a policy for frequent boilerplate
material, such as the standard GNU project texts. Of course, Debian
might consider not wanting to vote on this because of not wanting to
open a can of worms, where everybody demands a vote on his favorite
front and back cover texts.
If I were in the position of a Debian maintainer (which I am not), I
would consider GFDLed documentation with the standard GNU project
cover texts in their _current_ form sufficient for inclusion into main
as long as no invariant sections are involved.
Some _current_ uses for Invariant Sections by the GNU project are
a) inclusion of things like the "GNU Manifesto" and a section
"Distribution" in the GNU Emacs manual. I'd consider it a valid
stance to declare this non-free for Debian's purposes.
b) inclusion of the GPL when the software (but not the manual) is
licensed under the GPL. Since the GPL is available together with the
software itself and mostly of documentary (rather than legal)
relevance in the _manual_, including the GPL as a non-removable
section also would make me tend towards sorting this into Debian's
non-free category.
c) inclusion of the GFDL as Invariant Section. It is actually not
necessary to do this, since the GFDL, being the license for the
manual, can't legally be changed or removed, anyway AFAICS.
So I'd think an added vote with the choices:
a) use of invariant sections, front and back cover texts automatically
forces documentation to non-free.
b) use of invariant sections automatically forces documentation to
non-free, use of front and back cover texts leaves it to package
manager's discretion.
c) left to package manager's discretion even with invariant sections.
In cases b) and c), it would be useful to make a followup vote:
a) It is recommended to package maintainers to to let the current
boilerplate GNU project cover texts count as ok for inclusion in main.
b) It is inappropriate to accommodate the GNU project specifically.
No recommendation is given.
c) It is recommended to package maintainers to to let the current
boilerplate GNU project cover texts count as not suitable for
inclusion in main.
Something like that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: