Re: License for DOCs in main?
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> I was looking for the Network Administration Guide in Debian and
> couldn't find it. I thought this would have been packaged
> already. So I thought I'd better do it. If this were software,
> it wouldn't be DFSG-compliant because of its section 2 below.
> But it's documentation... Can it go in main? There's little
> point in packaging it if it doesn't get in CDs. I Think the
> other LDP books have a similar license).
*sigh*
We *really need* some rules on this.
IMHO, the restrictions below do not prevent us distributing on CD, and
I believe that we already have docs in main with licenses as harsh as
this.
On the other hand, I do think the license below is unacceptably harsh, and
Debian should have guidelines meaning that it is not allowed. I outline
what bothers me below. (But, it is stil MO that we can distribute this in
main under our current de facto rules.)
>
> 02. Any translation or derivative work of The Linux Net-
> work Administrators' Guide must be approved by the au-
> thor in writing before distribution.
This is awful.
> 04. Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for
> reviews or quotes in other works without this permis-
> sion notice if proper citation is given.
This is fair use, actually. I suppose there's no harm in making it
explicit.
*double sigh*
Shall I restart the document freenes discussion on -policy?
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: