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

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

[cc and reply-to more appropriate list]

Richard Atterer <deb-mentors@list.atterer.net> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > That package is in non-free. IIRC the issue is that you can't modify
> > the standards. Which is somewhat understandable, but still relegates
> > them to non-free.
> Hm, but the Internet RFCs are in main and they don't allow unlimited
> modification, either:
> So, should the RFCs go in non-free as well?

Probably. See bug#92810, which probably needs more attention.

> AIUI, the GNU Open Publication License also allows authors to restrict
> the right of making modifications to parts of the documentation. Is
> that non-free, too???

There is no such thing. If you meant the GNU Free Documentation
License, that one allows non-modification clauses only for non-topical
chapters. So I think it is ok with DFSG.

The documentation of the info and texinfo packages are placed under
GNU FDL, and both are in main. Probably affects other packages as

There's also the Open Publication License (not from GNU) which I am
less familiar with.


Attachment: signature.ng
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: