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

Re: LDP in main?

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:27:58PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but I understand the
> > > problems are with invariant sections used on anything but rather small
> > > sections of text (typically the copyright itself, a note about company
> > > sponsorship, or things like that). Documents without invariant sections
> > > are fine as far as I know.
> > 
> > I think we have only 1 or 2 that might even be questionable. I know 1
> > has a section added when it was archived. It shouldn't be an issue.
> We don't currently distribute HOWTOs that have been archived (if by that
> you mean the documents in unmaintained/), so that should be OK.

Yes, it's listed as "unmaintained" on the site, but that's because
before I got there there was no real difference between the two.

> > > My current plan is to have my refresh scripts get the XML database dump
> > > first, then use that plus a set of licence rules to decide which
> > > documents to download to produce this month's doc-linux tarball. The
> > > main problem is likely to be deciding which of the documents with
> > > licences flagged as "OTHER" are free and which aren't, which is where
> > > debian-legal's decisions about documentation licences are likely to
> > > become most important.
> > 
> > Other usually means non-free, in my experience. Those "licenses" are
> > usually just a statement that it is freely distributable, not a formal
> > license.
> OK. I'll have a look through a selection of them as and when I have time
> and see if I find any that are DFSG-free, in which case I can make
> case-by-case exceptions for packaging.

I am writing 15-20 authors every day and asking for them to relicense
under GFDL. So far I have received almost complete cooperation.

> > What is the latest we could put off the actual implementation? I want
> > a chance to get as many documents as possible relicensed before it
> > goes into Woody. Let's try to minimize the impact, heh?
> The standard freeze, which includes doc-linux, starts on December 8 and
> finishes (as I understand it) a month after that. I want to allow at
> least two weeks to get doc-linux-non-free accepted and to make sure
> there aren't any major packaging problems, so we need to start the
> implementation as soon as possible and upload a nearly-final version
> three weeks from now. Tweaks can be made after that if necessary.
> Unless there are further objections, the conversations in this thread
> suggest I should divide the package as follows:
>   doc-linux:          GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD
>   doc-linux-non-free: LDPL, NONE, OTHER


> It will also be worth investigating the packages of LDP translations. As
> far as I can tell, the ones that are parts of tasks and so subject to
> the next stage of the freeze are the Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese
> translations; I've cc'ed their maintainers so they're aware of the
> problem.


Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david@lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

Microsoft is - and will be - important, but it's hard to predict this stuff.
Say you'd been around in 1980, trying to predict the PC revolution. You
never would've come and seen me.
	--Bill Gates in Wired 2.12

Reply to: